Piers Morgan Uncensored - Should The Royal Family Pay Reparations?

Episode Date: March 7, 2024

YouTuber Amala Ekpunobi, academic and author Kehinde Andrews and comedian James Barr join Piers to discuss the pressure on the Royal Family to make reparations & Kate Middleton's uncle's comments about Harry and Meghan on UK's Celebrity Big Brother. Piers also asks his pack their thoughts on some theatres putting on nights that allow only black people in the audience plus they discuss the latest on the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. YouTube: @PiersMorganUncensored X: @PiersUncensored TikTok: @piersmorganuncensored Insta: @piersmorganuncensored Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Britain's had kings and queens some more than a thousand years. And as with US presidents, some have been magnificent, others have been what we might now call problematic. Henry VIII, for example, had very serious issues with what would now be known as toxic masculinity. His daughter, Queen Mary, was quite fond of burning Protestants, in front of jeering crowds. Similarly, the British Empire committed many heinous deeds

in the context of a darker, more ignorant time. But that all happened in the past. That's how history works. royal family had anything to do with those problematic issues. So why should they apologize for them? Well, campaigners in the Caribbean nations are again demanding that King Charles issues a formal apology for his ancestors' involvement in the slave trade. They also want financial reparations from today's public purse to compensate them for their past suffering. British royals are now routinely barraked for ancestral sins on every

tour that they go on, with demands that they issue apologies to indigenous communities in Canada and accusations they've crushed the development of Jamaica. This week, the Church of England, committed to raising a billion pounds for reparations, even as his congregations dwindle and his churches fall apart. The exact same movements happening across the United States, with an increasing clamour for the descendants of slaves

to be compensated for their ancestors' suffering. Now, look, there's no denying that slavery was an evil stain on humanity. In fact, that's why the British Empire eventually made it illegal 217 years ago. But even in his height, very few people actually own slaves. And one thing is for certain. None of the people who foot the bill today were responsible for any of it. To me, this entire narrative is regressive and divisive. How can we

ever be colourblind judging people by their character, not their skin colour, if we continue to preach the half the world's inherently evil and the other half are to blame for it? Well, joining me now is today's pack, also with the psychosis of whiteness, Cahindy Andrews, comedian and podcaster James Barr, and from L.A. the YouTuber Amala Economi. Welcome to all of you. All right. Cahinde, welcome back to Uncensored, along with James, two of my favorite guests. Okay, I need you to sell this to me

because I've thought about this a lot. And I understand why people want people to express regret for what happened, why they want to say, look, this was awful. I completely concur. Slavery was one of the most evil things in human existence. I just can't get my head around. why King Charles should be issuing apologies for something he never did

and secondly, what difference it would make and thirdly, on reparations, how does paying money now for the sins of people hundreds of years ago make any real difference either? Well, because the thing about the apology is the apology really is the route to reparations because this may have happened a long time ago

but the legacy is still with us. You go to the Caribbean, there's no black people in the Caribbean apart from slavery and it's one of the poorest regions in the world. And if you're in the UK and the king is the perfect example of the ostentatious wealth, the wealth we have here is because of what happened in slavery. So people in the Caribbean are poor today because of slavery and therefore there is a debt owed to them. Why do you care if King Charles says, I'm sorry? No, for me, the apology is not for like a moral

issue. That's so you then get reparations. That's what he won't say sorry, because when you say sorry, you accept responsibility and you have to pay for it. He hates slavery as much as you and I. It's not about, it's about the debt that is owed. People in Jamaica are poor. because of slavery. People in Britain are rich, and he's the perfect example of someone who is rich. It was the Royal African Company, which started by Charles II, that enslaved the most people that look like me in the world.

There is a debt owed. That wealth is with us and the poverty is with us, which is why it needs to be returned. All right, Amala, what do you think of this? Because opinions run strong on both sides. Where do you sit? I stand anti-reparations on this issue. I understand and acknowledge that slavery occurred.

massive and heinous transgression, but to think that people who never committed such a transgression are somehow responsible for the current trauma of people living in today's time who never experienced that transgression is quite frankly ridiculous to me. And to give an apology is to, as Kendi says, admit fault. And he is not at fault. He is not the one responsible for the slavery of the past, nor is he responsible for the issues that black people in the UK or in the Caribbean or here in the US as we're having many discussions here about reparations are facing. Right. I mean, James Bar, where does this end? If you take the idea that sins of the past have to be atoned with apology and reparations, do we now go to the Italians and say, right,

the Romans invaded us, we want money from you people, the Vikings. Do we go to Scandinavia and demand money from descendants of the Vikings? Otherwise, once you establish a principle of this, Where does it end? If we're going to trivialize it, then I would like to talk about... Why is that trivial? I would like to talk about how the church perhaps owe LGBTQ plus people

billions of pounds for the shame that they've caused queer people. And to be honest, it's not even a trivial argument. I think we should turn Westminster Abbey into a gay club. I genuinely believe that King Charles should say sorry and everyone here is saying... No, but answer my question,

what was your question? My question is... Well, my question is, if you assume that sins of the past, right, should be atoned with apology I think it's about who is the... What about marauding hordes of Romans, Vikings and so on, who killed a lot of people, caused total mayhem, cause destruction?

And we are a really rich country. So here's my point. Where does it... Where's the line for you? I think the line is that the royal family are still profiteering off of thousands of years of racism currently. And whether it's conscious or unconscious. How are they?

Because they own property that was built by slaves or funded by slaves. We need to acknowledge that. We need to say sorry for that, and we need to do the work, and we need to pay that debt back. Why does say, look, I get the sorry Lisa reparations, but the actual apology, I wouldn't apologize for what my ancestors did.

I think, to be honest, I think everybody in this country should apologize for that. Why? We never stop apologising. Because, well, exactly, but you won't apologize for this. And that's crazy to me, because this whole society is all seen in. If King Charles was found to be holding right now, and by the way, modern day slavery is a massive problem. There are millions of people held in modern day slavery, right?

If the royal family were found to be holding people in modern day slavery, absolutely throw the book of them, right? But they're not. It's had nothing to do with them. There is a proceeds of crime act in this country. The act may have happened, but the wealth is still here. That's the problem. The poverty is still here. This is not a past thing.

This is a now thing. If you're saying you want to fix the problems of the Caribbean and for black people in America and here, we don't have the money. And where's the money? It's with people like the king. So you have to return the money. reparations. The Church of England now says the 100 million earmarked by Church of England,

the new investment to repair damage caused by historically into slavery isn't enough, a report says. They're recommending a billion pounds. There are churches closing all over the country, right? Vickers are being paid less and less, and there are less and less than wanting to do the job anyway. The conditions they're living in are getting worse and worse. That's their whole. That's their fault. They're makers of their own doing this. How are we going to...

So why bankrupt the church? Because all they need to do is sell one of their cathedral. Sell a cathedral. Sell the jewels you stole. It's not difficult. How many gay people in this country live in property that may if you go back far enough

have been established from slavery? I'm sure a lot. And you know what, Piz? As I just said, I think everybody living in this country in the UK should apologize. The horrendous things are ancestors did. So 60 odd million people issue public apologies. I'm down for that.

And if there's any trace on any any line back to any slavery, anyone's property, which can be linked back to slavery, has to be what? Given to who? We are talking about normal people now, but we are talking about King Charles, the royal family. They have endless amounts of properties. How many bedrooms does Buckinghamham Palace have? You don't need all of that. Sell this stuff. Give the money back to people. If you steal something, you give it back. Let me go back to Amal. He's been listening very patiently. I mean, the argument about the royal family to me is a fatuous one because they bring in so much money in tourism. they wash their faces in my estimation. But if you don't believe in the royal family, you don't believe in the royal family. Americans don't have a royal family.

So they've got money for reparations. But as anything they're saying, my problem, my problem, about this is that once you establish this principle, there is simply no end to it. History is littered with evil people doing evil things

and descendants existing today who can be traced back to these people and they're evil things. Once you say, we're all culpable today for what happened 300 years ago, 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, it never stops. We've been in a perpetual state of what Mr. Barr's utopia is, which is millions of people chanting apologies all day long.

100%. If we are going to take this to its logical conclusion, that means that every single person who is alive today has some sort of claim to reparations. If we all look far enough into our ancestry, we will find heinous crimes committed by those who came before us, against those who came before us. So where does it stop?

That means white people are going to have a claim to reparations. The Japanese will have a claim to reparations. The Chinese will have a claim to reparations. This is what this means. And for some reason, we focus this just purely on black people as if they're the only ones who have ever suffered throughout their history. Now, this is not to deny that slavery has had some sort of impact that is now affecting the current state of America and the current state of UK.

But it is to ask, how big of a slice of that pie is it actually? and you are now handing black people a crutch where they can blame every single thing that goes wrong in their lives on something that happened historically. There's no black people in America without slavery. You do realize you're not there for, you're there because of slavery.

And you do realize there were lots of black slave owners? Oh my God, there were not lots of black slaves. There were. The big problem with the way this conversation is going. Do you deny that? There were black people who owned enslaved, yes, but the profits and the money are with us. They haven't gone.

You cannot compare this to Normandy. That's done. It's complete. In fact, Arab slave trade is a great example. Arabs enslave more people. It lasted for longer, but the Arab slave trade didn't generate wealth, and that wealth is gone. So I'm asking for reparations from Arabs. However, the European slave trade generated the wealth and created the poverty.

Therefore, there is a debt that is owed. It's that simple. So you want King Charles to basically apologize, and then what, to give up various palaces and sell them and give the money to, what, Antigua, Jamaica and so on? Caribbean countries that have clear reparate demands, and they should be funded. The rural family should. So you would end the royal family. Well, you know I'd end the rural family anyways.

Right. So that's my point. And there you've revealed the real motivation. There's a separation. No, because I agree with everything. It just slipped out to Indy. Actually, that's what you want to abolish the monarchy. But those two things are not mutually exclusive.

That's fine. Those are not mutually exclusive peers. You know they're not. You do not. He just said he do that. Yes, but that's not what necessarily needs to happen. They don't need all of that wealth. As you said, they bring in a lot of tourism.

So great, take that money instead and sell off all of the stuff you stole. But you'd get rid of the monarchy too, wouldn't you? No, I wouldn't actually. I would keep it, but I would change how it works in our society because at the minute, it isn't working. On the subject of the royal family, there's various issues I want to get to with you guys.

But fascinating, celebrity big brother over here has Kate Middleton's uncle, Gary Goldsmith, who's an erratic individual, the best of times. He said this last night. So I had the opinion that Harry was really, really, really loved. It must be loved. And when they were a threesome, so Kate William and Harry, they look really comfortable together, loved.

And then suddenly there's an extra diamond amic that comes in, puts a stick in the spokes, and creates so much drama that I don't genuinely think it was there, and rewrote the history and said how unhappy he was. And I just don't think that's fair. So we got, there we got Kate's uncle, Gary, dishing the dirt on the Sussex's. A certain James Barr immediately hit social media,

fuming at the chat where Kate's uncle Gary talks about how Megan came along and created drama whilst literally creating drama. He added, Harry got a girlfriend and that changed the dynamic. Grow up. Right, I do think you should grow up. Also, when was the last time Kate saw you? When was the last time any of us saw our uncles? Like, you're so irrelevant, please...

Would you know the answer? When you lost her uncle? No, I know. I see my uncles at the time. Literally, literally just... Right, you meant you lost to K. Okay, great, well, good for you. But listen, Kate doesn't really pick up the phone to this guy.

He's a loser. He's making up nonsense. You know, Megan came in and saved Harry from a toxic, abusive situation. He really looks like a saved individual to me. He does to me, actually. He does. He does.

He looks inherently unhappy. I think he looks pretty happy because he's ignoring... all of the nonsense that you stout about him. Good for him. He's not, is he? He's suing over most of it. So, Candy, you and I have debated before

about what went down with the Sussex's and about the race aspect to it. But it can't be much doubt, Ken, there. If you look at it in totality, that Harry, before Meghan came along, was existing seemingly quite happily in the royal family. She comes along.

There's a huge deal made of her mixed race background, which I wrote about on the wedding day being a fantastic thing for this country, by the way, but what it's worth, as did all the other media at the time. Then it all went wrong because of their behaviour, which I never felt was racially motivated. But there can't be much doubt that Megan brought with her a lot of drama into Harry's life.

Because look, look, as well, it happened since he met her. I mean, I think, firstly, there was plenty of drama in Harry's life before Megan, like plenty of drama. And the idea that he was happy is clearly not true. You wrote a whole book saying he's not happy, spare all this, etc. And this is one of these, this is actually where... But only wrote that years. after being with Megan.

The idea that this black woman comes in and all of a sudden there's drama, it's ridiculous. It's not true. He wasn't happy. And that's a racist idea. Do you actually categorise it as a black woman? Yes, he's a black woman. Because she's treated as a black woman.

She's a black mother, white father. Do you think she's a black woman? Do you think people in Britain viewed her as a black woman? I think the evidence is very clear how she was treated, how she was treated in the family, how she treated in the press,

that she was viewed as a black woman. Whether she viewed herself as a black woman when she went in? Another question. She was certainly treated as a black woman. Amaro, what's a view over in America about Megan Markle, particularly the way she's played the race card against the royal family, as the only non-white bride we've had in the royal family?

Sure. I would say, for the most part, Americans are not too fond of Megan Markle. And Mr. Andrews, she is biracial, much like I am biracial, and we can make the argument that she's constantly going to be seen as black, but the fact is she's a biracial woman. But I think what a Megan Markle carried with her is an idea of perpetual victimhood. she views herself as a victim because she is female. She views herself as a victim because she is black. And when you carry that sort of energy with you

and you view the world through that lens, every odd look is going to be racism. Every off comment is going to be racism. Now, I can't speak to the internal dynamics of the royal family, what was said and what was not, but I do know that that's her attitude. Yeah, see, James, my take, for what it's worth, it's not a new take, you'll be aware of my view of it.

But I sort of felt that they actually are both equally to blame for this, but they whip themselves into a state of perpetual victimhood, not just from their own families, but also from the media and everything. Well, they were being attacked by the media. Well, they're also praised a lot. They never thanked the media of praising them. And then as soon as Camilla could get her awe in, allegedly.

Camilla? Well, the suggestion is that she was feeding the press negative stories, right? Completely untrue. Well, have you spoken to Camilla? Actually, I have spoken to Camilla. Has that been through legal process? Do you know whether that is true or untrue? What?

What I just said, is it factually true or untrue? No evidence Camilla has ever briefed anyone in the media about idols. Well, it's alleged. Well, it's alleged by Harry. Right. So we have to take it as an alleged offense, right? So that's what supposedly happened. So why now is the silence around Kate so loud?

Because the palace have decided... There's no silence around Kate. Yes, there is. The palace have decided... She had a serious abdominal surgery. Whereas when Megan was being attacked constantly, nobody stood up for Megan. The palace didn't release a statement at all. They said nothing.

And Megan continued to be attacked in the press. So I would argue that she wasn't playing a victim. Why was she attacked in the press? Well, that's a great question. I would argue that it was racism, but I can't see it through my lens. Hang on. They weren't attacked until after they got married, right?

So, and I know this because I was writing columns about praising them. So why did you change your tune? What made you decide? I'm going to what? I'm going to tell you. I changed my tune like the rest of the British press. When after they got married, they started behaving in a weirdly, rankly,

hypocritical manner. They would preach about carbon footprint and climate change. Then we'd see them getting on Elton John's private plan. Okay, but here's that stupid. Let me finish my point. They would say, they would, they would, they would, they would, they would get to finish our point. You do. They literally tweeted about the need to take poverty seriously on their Twitter. But they have a security issue. On the day, she had a half a million dollar baby shower in New York. And then flew back on the things. In other words, okay, King Charles always goes on about climate change. Camilla's getting a private jet on holiday. By the way, they all get a

We all get criticized. We can all talk about it. They all get criticized. You don't think Charles and Camilla have been criticized? No, come on, Pierce. You have to do it. Please. The two most criticized people in royal history were Charles and Camilla.

You're not old enough to remember. You are. I am. I do not. And it wasn't racially motivated. And the crimes committed against her. How old were you and Diana died? I was, it was 96.

So I would have been just over 10? Like 10? So you weren't old enough to know what was going down, right? I knew Diana and I knew what went down. No one's been more. Villeifier than Camilla in royal history. The idea that Meg and Markle got anything like the treatment that Camilla got appeared, he's for the birds.

No, he is, but I want to go to this whole fascination with them. Even when you were writing positive things, that was still about race. That was nonsense anyway. The idea that she'd come in and change the family. And when she came in and said very clearly, I want to be the face of the Commonwealth. I want to do this work, which I would have hated. In fact, I'm so happy it went badly because that would have been the very worst thing.

She clearly tried and said, look, I want to be part of his family, want to do this. And every little thing was drip, drip, drip, and this is the experience that black people have. All of the time. All of the time. If it's just the terrible royal family, this all white, awful group of people,

and the media. How do you explain she's also disenfranchised from her own family on both, wait, on both sides. I think a better way of looking at that. On both sides, the only member of her family on either side was her mother. She had people like George Clooney.

She'd never met George Clooney before the wedding. I don't know about a personal situation, but I do know this family and this media, there is no... You're blaming the... You're blaming the... You're blaming the... the royal family for the way they treated Megan Markle.

I'm saying, who do you blame in her family then? Are they all to blame too? That's a completely different. Because she disowned all of them as well. Well, I would argue that she has, yeah, she experienced abuse from her own family, right? Thomas Markle sold stories. Her sister is awful. We don't even need to talk.

Thomas Markle sold interviews after they threw him to the wolves. When you've been in an abusive situation, you see it everywhere. And I think perhaps Megan went with Harry into his family and went, okay, this doesn't seem right. And she knows because she's been there. Amala, in America, obviously, this is where they've got their new home. They've made hundreds of millions from companies like Netflix, Spotify, and so on by trashing their families. But that stick is running out of steam. I mean, there's no doubt people's appetite in America and everywhere else is pretty low now for more of that stuff. What do they do? Are they just like rent a celebrity now or what happens to them? I don't know. Maybe they fall into obscurity, although I don't see that actually being the case. because as much as they call for privacy and wanting to be alone, they somehow always end up in the press. She did an interview with Oprah.

They did this whole Netflix documentary whilst saying that they want to keep out of the public eye and be able to lead their own lives with their families. They continue to complain about the racism faced in a family that they are seemingly no longer a part of. So I'm not sure where they go next from here. There will be some other victim card to play eventually, though. I think that is absolutely guaranteed.

On a separate point, Amalia, interestingly over here, TMZ in America, broke an exclusive with the first picture of Kate, the Princess of Wales, in a car with her mother, apparently maybe on the school run. Now, in the UK, those pictures have not appeared because of an understanding between the media and the palace, the terrible media, James, doing... Which protects some and don't protect others, exactly.

Exactly the same rules would have applied to the Sussexes, by the way, with their kids. Exactly the same. But the deal was they couldn't be published here. I was trying to think in America, there would be unthinkable, wouldn't it, if, say, the wife of a president was having recuperation from surgery and was caught by photographers, unthinkable that everyone but Americans would see that picture. Because everyone outside of the UK has seen this picture of the Princess of Wales,

apart from the people here who actually pay the money through taxation for the royal family. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. I don't think that would ever happen in the United States. I think Americans would know about that immediately. No, I don't know exactly how that works in the UK and why that has been held from you, but I can assure you we would know. One thing that happened here, Cahindy,

this is this producer of a West End show, slave play, which features the Games of Thrones star, Kit Harrington and I'm on the cast. It runs from end of June to end of September at the Norcolle Theatre, and will have blackout events confirmed to be taking place on two of those nights. This is where two performances will be aimed at an all-black identifying audience that is free from the white gaze. And it follows a similar thing on Broadway in 2019. Now, Prime Minister of Rishi Sunak, the official spokesman says,

restricting audiences on the basis of race would be wrong and divisive. I mean, my take on this was, I was I was trying to imagine, if you had an all-white cast and you said, right, we're going to have an all-white identifying audience free from the black gaze, you would go absolutely apoplectic with race.

It clearly wouldn't be the same. Why wouldn't it be the same? Because the problem here is, if you go to some of these shows, you will find there is an all-white audience. Unfortunately, because of the way it works, some of these places, they are almost exclusively white. But just advertising it in that way,

you would see, You would deem it extremely racist and offensive. So there is a problem that you have almost all-white audiences and it doesn't feel like a safe space for black audience members or castmen. And so what you're saying is trying to address this problem, let's have an all-black space. So when you go to the theatre, there's no problem of all-black. To be clear, when you go to a theatre and you see white people there,

you don't feel safe? No, when it's, when, I promise you, you, go to a theatre and it's all-black people, you'll feel away. I promise you, 100% for you. Have you ever been into a theatre and it's all black people? I've been to concert, I've been to rap concerts in America where I've been one of the few white people, yeah. It's different.

The point is, it's different. When you go, it's different for me. When I go into this place, it's different. It doesn't feel comfortable. But just to make it, so in answer to my question, though, that's my question, if there was an all-white identifying audience billed as the marketing that was free from the black gaze,

you would say that was racist. Because it would be racist. This is to address a specific problem. There is that in the cultural sector, there is all white spaces. The only works. So how do you address this? Right.

So racist if it's to do with. You're just minimizing the importance of that conversation again. You're just being, you're just making it a hypocritical conversation. to cause an argument. Or am I exposing a double standard? No, there isn't a double standard.

I'm actually exposing the hypocris. One of these groups is a minority and one isn't. And you always bang on and I hate to bring this in because I don't want to have a debate about it, but you always bring in safe spaces for women, which I completely agree with. And you talk about how important that is, but then suddenly when there's a safe space for black people,

you've got an issue with it. So what's going on there? I don't understand why a theatre. The theatre is not an unsafe space. There's some double standards. Sorry, you're making out that somehow black people can't go to the theatre. No, but we're having a conversation about safe spaces and the idea is that by doing a blackout event, it will feel safer for that community to talk about issues.

So what if I want to have a whiteout event? They all are whiteout. Well, you can join the Ku Klux Klan if you want, Piers. You're more than welcome. So if it's a white out event, it's Klu Klux Klan, right? Who are the most racist group in history? I got it. So one way, one way, if it's white out, if it's blackout, absolutely fine. The point is it's already white out. You see how ridiculous it sounds?

The point is, how ridiculous you sound. I'm bringing Amala, the voice of common sense. Amala, I mean, just hearing these two, honestly, trying to work out in their brains, very slowly, it seems to me, the ridiculous double-standing of what they're saying. You must be laughing, I'm laughing. Oh, I'm laughing. I'm shaking my head.

To me, this is absolutely ridiculous. It is one of the most blatantly racist things I've seen in quite some time. And it's quite literally demeaning to black people. How insulting that you would say to black people that they don't feel safe in a space because there are fellow white people there and they need to be safe from the white gaze

and how racist it is to white people to exclude them from being able to enjoy something like the theater. This is very reminiscent of the Jim Crow South that we experienced in America where you had white and colored water fountains. This is the very same reality that we are now ushering in, even though we made it to a time of progress

where this was no longer an issue. We are inviting it back. It is racist. It is wrong. In any way, shape of form, it's the same. is Jim Crow. What you actually have in the minute

is go to a show in the West End. It feels like Jim Crow already. It's already a white out. This is an anti-racist way. But if white people did this, we're the KKK says Dave. You do it all the time. Okay.

And here's the problem. From a queer perspective. Here's the problem. From a queer, what about a very ignorant perspective? As a gay case, it's important that I am sometimes in a space of other queer people that is just queer people. So I feel safe to be myself without worrying.

I would excuse you, Pirs. But if you want to go to GAY with me, I'm more than... I've been there, mate. Let's go together. Great. But listen, my point is, we need safe spaces so that we feel safe. And actually, you're talking about it being racist to exclude white people. Why are white people not making black people feel safe? Do you feel unsafe now? That is the question.

Do you feel unsafe now with a straight guy opposite you? Not really, no. Do you feel unsafe with the white guys in the way, man? It's not about that, peers. It's about 10 days of what we will say. It's actually, yes, especially with the comments that we receive. Well, after comparing my position to KK. I did not compare that. I said you could join them if you wanted that. That's what I said.

So, yeah, just to be clear, if it's, if it's free from the black gays, it's KKK, free from the white gays, that's, that's, that's, this is an anti- emancipation. This is an anti-racist idea. This is what the whole point is to address a problem. It's actually, in its own way, it's just blatant racism. It's not racism. It is. It's excluding people on their skin color. It's the exact opposite of what Martin Luther King said. But judge people by the content of their character. You were trying to exclude Megan Markle from being black. You can't get more safe than a theatre audience. You were just trying to. The idea that someone like Cahindi Andrews goes to a theatre and feels unsafe

because he's a white person. A minute ago, you were excluding Megan Markle from being black because of her skin colour. Now you're saying that's not allowed. So you just excluded Megamarkle for her skin colour like 20 minutes ago. You were saying she wasn't black enough. No, no, I asked Cahindi whether he believes she's a black woman. Yeah, she could come to the show. We've actually had another guest.

Yeah, she's allowed. Yeah, she's allowed. We've had another guest say she thinks she's a mixed race woman. I think terminology matters. Right. You don't? No, of course I think terminology matters, but I'm just saying you are defining someone by skin colour

and then a minute later... I didn't actually define her skin colour. I didn't actually define her skin colour. I asked a Hindi and I asked Imala. They disagreed. Can I ask a question please? What's the wrong with us going on a different day? You can still go.

You can go on any other day. It's not... The point is this is this... If anybody tried in this country or America to have a white-only audience to avoid the black gaze, all hell would break loose. and you know who would lead the charge, you would.

It already happened. You would accuse them of being racist, and you would say in your normal, virtue signaling way, it's the clodied clan come back. And that's why you're both guilty of rank hypocrisy. Segregated communities, segregated schools, segregated theaters. These happen today. Amala? The voice of common sense on this.

They're guilty of racism is essentially what it is. Some of my best friends are white. So I cannot be racist towards white people. Okay, here's the issue with this way of thinking. You notice a disparity amongst race and you immediately attribute it to racism. Mr. Andrew says, you know, there are theaters that sometime you go to them and there's all white people

in the audience. Now, I don't know that that is actually true. But if you attribute that to racism, that is your problem. If you feel safe or unsafe in a space that contains white people, that is your problem. It is not our responsibility. I think it's economically racist. I think the reason that most of the,

audiences in the West End are white is because of an economic problem. But it's not. I, as a black person, have attended the theater all of my life. Did you study economics? Every single black person that has, every black person in the UK has the very same choice to go and be in the theater. Even if it was because of an economic disparity, that economic disparity does not exist purely because of racism. And to attribute it purely to racism is to ignore a ton of other problems. that are existing within the black community

and blame white people for it. So why is it? Because actually you'll find in America as well, there are hugely segregated audiences for comedy, for theater, why is that? Why is it you can literally go, yes, oh my, yes, they are. If you're saying what country do you live in, that you cannot tell me right now, if you go see a comedy in a black community in America,

it's all black people. And you can go to the same thing in a white community, it's all white people. Residential segregation. Why did these things happen? So just because people tend to be with other people of their similar race does not mean that those shows are segregated. To segregate something is to exclude a group of people,

which is exactly what these blackout theaters are doing. Just because you happen to attend a show that is full of black people or full of white people does not mean that there is some sort of segregation actively happening. And it is a failure in your thinking. Yes. It's just by action that America is one of the most segregated countries in the world. It just happens.

America's half. I go to the comedy store in Los Angeles. It's always. a completely mixed race audience. I mean, this idea that everything segregated is absurd. Nobody said everything was segregated. Give it to America.

I never said everything was segregated, but I can promise you there will be theaters in a theater around America. I've been to concerts, I've been to sport, always extremely multicultural audiences. This idea it's all segregated. It's for the birds. This is what the victimhood mentality brings about.

You should not be all uncomfortable in a space that's literally white. I think my point is, like, because James Barr's offended. I think misogynist to birds. My overarching point is, do we believe in safe spaces for marginalised communities? Yes, I do as a queer person.

So I see why this is a great idea. Yeah, but you don't feel that way, oddly, about the trans debate, do you? You feel very differently about the trans debate. I don't think women should be excluded from any place. You think biological males should be allowed into women's spaces without a moment's thought for women's rights to not have that happen. So you are a rank hypocrite.

I don't think any woman should be excluded from any female space. Right, but you don't mind biological males. Identifying as women. I don't think any woman should be excluded from a female space. So a six-foot, seven-inch, bearded biological male says I'm a woman.

You're happy with them going... A six-foot-bearded woman should not be excluded from a female space. Right, so you think all trans women are women. I do believe all trans women are women. Why are you trying to check me up? I've made my point very clear. Are all people who put their hand up and say,

I'm a woman, a woman? If you... Are they? If you officially are a woman... on your passport or your birth certificate, you are a woman. That's my head's on my question. That's my answer, Pierce. I'm not giving you a different answer.

Is anybody who puts their hand up and says, I'm a woman, a woman? Transwomen are women. No, no. It wasn't my question. Is anyone who identifies as a woman? Yes, I believe so. Okay. So you can identify as anything you want. But do you know how difficult it is to get to the point where you identify as a woman? Okay.

Or how difficult it is to actually legally identify. Wait a minute. Do you know how to do that is? Let's test your theory. Wait a minute. Let's test your theory. I am a woman. He just said legally.

You're being an idiot. Am I a woman? Of course you're not a woman. You know you're not a woman. So everybody identifies in a woman is not a woman. You're simplifying something so complicated. It's so frustrating. Safe spaces.

Do you believe in a safe space for black people like a Hindi? Safe spaces for gay people like Jane Barlow. No safe spaces for women. Yes, safe spaces for women. No, no, no, no. Do you believe in a safe space for women? No safe spaces for women. Trans women are trans women.

Do you believe in a safe space for women? females should be protected and have their own safe spaces. For women or not? Do you believe in a safe space for women? I don't think trans women. I've not asked you that. I've asked you if you think women's spaces should be safe for women. Women should be given safe spaces from biological males. So if your answer is a woman's space should be safe for women, your answer is that a black space should be safe for black people.

No, because there's no fear for black people in a theatre. It's ridiculous. It's not about fear. Like, when we say safe spaces, I don't think it's not about. Yeah. Amala. Jump in, please. You're the only voice of common sense. Let's explain why this is the case and why Pierce might believe that there should be safe spaces for women.

Men function at a biological advantage over women. They can harm women. Women become victims. This is why trans women, who are, aka biological men, cannot be allowed into women's spaces. There is an actual distinct, studiable biological advantage. Is there a biological advantage that white people have over black people? absolutely not. And this invisible privilege that we seem to give to them does in fact not exist. That is why there are safe spaces for women and not safe spaces for black people.

That is utterly ludicrous. Safe spaces for women is not about physical attack either. Sometimes it is. It's not all about physical attack. It absolutely is. We've literally had. If we're only want to have a women's reading group, it's not just about physical attack. It's about more than it. Right. The first minister of, the first minister of, the first minister of, the first minister of Scotland, Nicholas Sturgeon, literally lost. her job because she allowed a biological male rapist, identifies a woman, and put them into a female prison. I don't think a prison, do you know what?

Honestly, this is sticking right-wing hypocrisy. It's not right-wing? I'm not right-wing. On one hand, you're saying a safe space should exist for women, but only if they feel threatened by someone that is bigger than them. And then on the other hand, you're saying, well, these are all these black people that are going to go to the blackout events,

who you've not asked, by the way, clearly do not feel unsafe around white people? And so they shouldn't have a safe space space. What are you talking about? I've never met a single black person who says, I can't go to the theatre because I worry about my safety. It's not about safety. It's not about safety.

It's not even about the theatre. It's about saying they are. And I probably, as a big place. You literally use the phrase safe space. Look, but safe, what does safe mean? So say, let me give you examples, right now. I'll tell you, I'll tell you right now. I thought it made, safe.

I'll tell you right now. There are certain stereotypes attached to me as a black man that I have to deal with in all white places. All the time, all the time. I walk in my university and people I know don't look at me because they're afraid of me. Oh, rubbish. It's true, 100% true.

And I'll promise you, I've been into it. People who know you're in the universe. His experience is rubbish. It's a truth. It's in the book. Let me give it straight. You go through your university and people who know you are terrified of you. Because they don't look at me.

See a black man walking down and we'll look down. If I'd watch you on TV, I'd probably give you a swerve too. I'm doing your skin color. When I go into these theaters and I go into these white theaters, you do have to act differently. You do have to be different because you can't. No, that is, I'm sorry. We literally had somebody call the police.

I'm not saying when I get a Beyonce concert, I feel terrified because there are too many black people. The idea that white people cannot harm black people is frankly ludicrous. It's insane that you're top of the food chain as a white straight guy and you can't accept that. Top of the food chain. Yeah.

You have all the privilege, all the power. Literally, middle-aged white men are the most oppressed people in society. How much money are you making from this? We are literally the most oppressed people in society in the world. How much money is that paying? We are actually in danger species.

Crazy. Before we let you go, because I've enjoyed this debate, I want to just talk about Donald Trump. So Donald Trump has just pretty much won the Republican nomination to be president again. Nikki Haley's pulled out today. I mean, Amala, she took it absolutely drubbing in Super Tuesday. It's no surprise.

But Donald Trump is on the march for one of what will be if he was to win back the White House the most astonishing comeback in modern political history. How do you explain this? I mean, for people outside America who go, what is, how can a guy facing 91 criminal charges with all the baggage that Trump brings, with the riots at the Capitol,

all the stuff that we know about, how is it that he is now storming back to the White House? Yeah, sure. I've seen for a large portion of the Republican Party, a lot of people feel not only that he was sort of snubbed in the last election, but that he's somewhat entitled to another run here, and that's a big portion of his support.

Also, a lot of people are experiencing the presidency of Joe Biden right now. He is clearly suffering from dementia. He has done nothing to stop the illegal immigration problem here in the United States, nothing to stop crime from escalating here in the states. He's fueling a racial divide and a lot of different sort of social divides within our country. And people are looking for another candidate who's going to speak truth to the media, stand up and do something about the issues that we're facing in our daily lives.

Only so long can we move forward with this victim narrative while things don't change in our lives. And we have a slew of issues that we're experiencing here in the United States. And if it comes up to a Trump versus Biden election, I think a lot of people are going to be looking for the candidate who's going to solve the problems. And whether they like it

or not, I feel like that's Donald Trump. I think if it's Trump, Biden, Trump wins. I mean, Kenne, I've heard you called Trump a racist and so on. What is stacking? is that his support among black voters in America has grown by 500% in the last four years. This is a New York Times-Cianna poll released at the weekend. The former president's support among black voters

is now 23% marking a 19% increase since the same poll taken in October 2020. I mean, that is truly staggering. And you see an appreciative fall in black vote support for Joe Biden. How can that be happening if the guys are racist? I mean, if that is true, it is actually. What's a new ex-hives poll? I mean, the poll's true, but if that actually translates to the election, I'm very, very, very-very.

But how do you explain it? Well, I mean, this is part of the, you think talk about white men being the most oppressed. I mean, it's the perfect example of why you can be a mediocre white man and keep coming back. I mean, Trump wasn't just a racist president. He was a terrible president. I mean, just coronavirus? Do you remember this? How's he going to win again?

He's going to win because you love this narrative because he plays on racism. Make America great. But how do you explain it? You can keep calling him a racist, but how do you explain 500% increase in support from America black monies? I am very doubtful that will actually. And also, sadly, can you explain it? You're a professor. Well, no, partly that's about Biden is terrible. I think we can all agree Biden is terrible. Another example of just put mediocre white man, mediocre white man, Biden is terrible.

It's also, and I think people are frustrated. There are millions, according to this poll, there are now millions more black people in America. Trump's appeal to black people who are gravitating to someone you believe is a terrible racist. Trump's appeal to black people is going to make some sneakers. I'm going to do AI. It actually has to have AI images of him with black people because that's how few black people knows. I mean, this is somebody who's all about. I don't think that's true, you see.

It's somehow, look, if people are being deluded by this, that's a shame. I can't say anything other than that's a shame. But this is not, just because a few black people like you, just because a few black people like it. I mean, I wouldn't have used that phrase. I'm not sure that's what Gayhani just said. I don't know exactly what he said. Hey, let me be very clear.

If millions of black people vote for Trump, they will be deluded. Okay. So, Cahendi, Andrews says black Americans are deluded. I'll come to Amala for that in the moment. Yeah. But James Bart, how do you explain? I mean, this guy's supposed to be a racist and yet black people are flocking to support him.

Honestly, I can't speak for black people, peers. I know you can, but I can't. You speak to trans people? Yeah, well, I'm in the queer community, so I support them, of course. You're not trans. You're not in that community. You know what? Let's just not get that. Let's not do that again. My opinion is that Trump is an entertainer, and he is using his narcissism.

His entire career as an entertainer has been in the spotlight. He knows how to win audiences over it, regardless of his policies. But what upsets me so much is that he's responsible for that huge capital riots. worse and says just so many stupid things. He forgot his own wife's name. If we're going to talk about dementia. Joe Biden can't even remember his own name. Trump is also having age issues.

He can't remember his own name. So it's not easy. It's not as simple as that. So I think what upsets me is that we've got two presidential candidates that aren't good enough, basically. That's the real issue. All right, Amala, I mean, I find that poll fascinating in the New York Times. Why is it, do you think, that black voters are turning in big numbers

comparative to four years ago to Trump? Yeah, well, first and foremost, it is not because we are deluded, and that's quite frankly an insulting thing to say about black Americans who would choose to vote for somebody like Donald Trump. The real reality is that black Americans are becoming educated and they are facing issues within the United States that they want to see solved. Like I said, illegal immigration. Crime is skyrocketing. The left is running on this whole defund the police movement and telling black people that they're perpetual victims in America whilst simultaneously doing nothing for them. Joe Biden said, if you don't vote for me, you ain't black. But somehow Donald Trump is the racist. People are realizing this.

Black America is waking up, and they're looking for a candidate who's actually going to solve the real world problems that they are facing in their community, rather than telling them that they're perpetual victims of racism while doing nothing for them. It's perfectly fine to say, look, Biden isn't great, and because you have a two-system, it's terrible, and some people vote for it. But if you actually think that anything in Trump's platform is going to help black people, that is a delusion. because he doesn't promise it, he's never argued it, and he's not going to do it.

And if he fixes... Trump is frankly racist. The capital rights... Actually, actually, if he fixes his crime and he fixes the southern border issue and the fentanyl crisis, if he does those things, he will directly improve the lives of many black Americans. That's why they gravitated. If you do that by mass incarceration and putting more black people in prison,

that doesn't actually benefit us at all. You know the truth? Obama... Here's my favorite question. Do you know how many illegal immigrants Obama deported in eight years? Obama was terrible, too. You're not going to catch me. So America's only black president was terrible.

I didn't like Obama too. Wow, so you've hammered American black voters and the American black president. Wow. On that bombshell, on that bog shell, on that bog shell, the greatest attacker of black Americans in history for Indianaries.

Wow. Thank you very much in Biggie. I don't have to turn it all. Always good to see you with the Ku Klux Klan. And Amala, what a lovely breath of fresh air you were today. So you can come back any time. Marla, Econobi. Thank you very much indeed.

Joining us from across the pond. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.