that's according to the shadow science secretary. peter kyle says the party's leadership will probably continue engaging with frontbenchers, despite disagreeing with sir keir starmer. he's echoed the un's call for a humanity pause in fighting and for aid to be allowed into gaza. but many senior figures want him to go further and call for a ceasefire . hollywood actor matthew perry, the star of the legendary sitcom friends , has died at the age of friends, has died at the age of 54. forget hypnosis. >> the way to quit smoking is you have to dance naked in a field of heather and then bathe in the sweat of six healthy young men. >> or what my father calls thursday night. >> well, police were called to his home in los angeles, where he was found unresponsive in a hot tub . and matthew perry hot tub. and matthew perry became a household name as the character chandler bing , character chandler bing, alongside his five central co—stars in the iconic 1990s series, which won multiple emmys and record ratings. warner brothers have said in a

statement his comedic genius was felt around the world. his legacy will live on in the hearts of many and scotland's refugees . minister is asking the refugees. minister is asking the uk government for urgent funding to help communities to house migrants. emma roddick supports the government's plan to cut the use hotels for asylum seekers use of hotels for asylum seekers and says tackling a backlog in cases priority. but cases should be a priority. but she warns that shifting the financial burden onto local authorities would be unacceptable and reckless . the unacceptable and reckless. the immigration minister, robert jenrick , says the number of jenrick, says the number of hotels used to house migrants will be cut by 50 over the next three months . well, that's it three months. well, that's it for the moment. we are live across the uk, on tv, on digital radio and smart speaker. i'll be back with another bulletin in about an hour's time. but now it is over to free speech nation . is over to free speech nation. >> i'm andrew doyle. i'm here at church house in westminster at the battle of ideas for this

special edition of free speech nafion. nation. >> welcome to the show everyone. >> welcome to the show everyone. >> please do welcome to the stage . leo kearse and paul cox . stage. leo kearse and paul cox. thanks and exciting anecdotes from the week. not really. >> i worked through a palestinian protest on the way here. >> how did you enjoy that? >> how did you enjoy that? >> not really. i forgot my yarmulke so have you been paying attention to all of these protests for no , no. protests for no, no. >> great. so let's move on. no, look, we've got a great audience here tonight and i want to make the most of them. so we've got questions for the two of you about things that have been happening over the week. we're going to start with scott. where

is scott? hi >> is acceptable for some >> is it acceptable for some people start drinking bud people to start drinking bud light ? light again? >> you'll know, won't you? that bud light, they hired dylan mulvaney to advertise their brand. and it turns out their people didn't like that. >> no, of course they didn't. i mean, this is what happens when you remove bullying from schools. yeah . you essentially schools. yeah. you essentially reach a point where a beer that is used to help sort of, you know , low earning alpha males know, low earning alpha males relax. yes is sponsored by a lady with a willy. very delicately put it reminds me a bit of the gillette advert. >> remember when they did a big advertising campaign attacking toxic masculinity just attacking men basically . i could have told men basically. i could have told them that that's their core demographic. yeah. and they lost millions , didn't they? they lost. >> well, this is absolutely isn't it. who is at the top of these businesses? because there's only one goal of any business make

business and that's to make money. so got to be money. so there's got to be someone who must be in someone there who must be in that going, what are that boardroom going, what are we well, think the >> yes. well, i think the question the gentleman question from the gentleman there to do with the u—turn there is to do with the u—turn that bud light. do you know about you know about this, leo? do you know what so well? what they've done so well? >> i thought it made more sense to have dylan mulvaney advertising it. >> i know anybody's >> i don't know if anybody's drunk but it's like drunk bud light, but it's like 3. drink it and you actually 3. you drink it and you actually feel getting sober. it feel yourself getting sober. it sort it flushes alcohol. sort of it flushes the alcohol. it's already in your out . it's already in your blood out. >> and well, who have they got now to advertise? >> if anything, the only convincing convincingly feminine thing that dylan mulvaney has ever done is drink bud light. so no , no, no . they've got ufc. no, no, no. they've got ufc. what is ufc? it's a it's a chicken shop in lewisham . and chicken shop in lewisham. and it's this sort of fighting thing. it's sort of like all the fighting sports put together. you get in a cage and you grapple quite erotically it sounds like my weekend . sounds like my weekend. >> yeah ultimate fighting champion it's ultimate fighting

championship so they've been paid $87 million by bud light to advertise it. >> but the guy says it's not about the money. no i think it's about the money. no i think it's a little bit about the money. >> so they're basically trying to butch up the brand. yeah, yeah. at this point, is that going to work? no you don't think they're going to be forgiven? >> i think people drink, >> i think people who drink, most people who drink bud most of the people who drink bud light this has light have not noticed this has gone i'd imagine some of gone on. i'd imagine some of them won't done anyway. but them won't have done anyway. but of it's not going to of course, it's not going to recover. lost billion on recover. they lost billion on the stock this business the stock market. this business is it's going to be is where it's going to be forever. now have to be forever. now they'll have to be another fill its another weak beer to fill its place. think they should get me >> so i think they should get me to advertise it. >> why not? to advertise it. >> well not? to advertise it. >> well ,ot? to advertise it. >> well , i:? to advertise it. >> well , i mean, to advertise it. >> well, i mean, i could advertise crumbed a month or something like that. that's probably i could manage probably all i could manage a week. sherry. get week. sherry. okay let's get another question. sergio. another question. we got sergio. where question is, and you all >> my question is, and you all look like you drove porsches here. he's selling your porsche . here. he's selling your porsche. the answer to britain's housing crisis . crisis. >> so i assume you're talking

about gordon ramsay there. so there was a viral video this week. now i know that gordon ramsay, he's a bit skint, apparently. who knew that? and he was buying a flat and he wasn't sure what to do. and his father suggested that he sell his porsche . yeah. and was his porsche. yeah. and he was shocked at this incredible idea . shocked at this incredible idea. >> well, it was his father in law , so he went to his wife's law, so he went to his wife's dad . that's what my father in dad. that's what my father in law is. in case you didn't know and don't have enough and said, i don't have enough money this flat. and it's money for this flat. and it's like 20 grand for a deposit, which instantly makes sick which instantly makes me sick because like £2.5 million because it's like £2.5 million for a deposit on any any sort of accommodation. no, but yeah. and his father in law said, well, why don't you sell your porsche? and gordon ramsay was like, oh wait, that's that's quite wait, that's yeah, that's quite a because the porsche a good idea because the porsche is probably worth like 20 grand. so the porsche. so he sold the porsche. but what's interesting the what's interesting now is the father bankrupt and father in law is bankrupt and went to jail for hacking gordon ramsay. so even though he had good financial advice in that one moment, it doesn't seem like he's that well set up as a

financial adviser. the rest of the time. >> does it just go to show you have different tiers of society where they don't really understand the idea money or understand the idea of money or the of being poor the idea of being poor or they've no of sense of they've got no sort of sense of connection reality. connection with reality. >> remarkable a man >> it's remarkable that a man who essentially well who essentially can cook well and swear has got this far because you went if you if, because if you went if you if, because if you went if you if, because i can do both, if you can, you know, if you went if i went to my father in law and by the way, that porsche is worth well over £100,000 and said, can i borrow 20 grand? and he said, we ought to sell the pulse first. believe he first. i can't believe he stopped i said, and when stopped there. i said, and when you sold the porsche, take the 20 of that and leave 20 grand out of that and leave me alone. can't understand for me alone. i can't understand for a why this has a minute why this this has become this dawning moment a minute why this this has beclifee this dawning moment a minute why this this has beclife whereiawning moment a minute why this this has beclife where everything ment his life where everything changed him. it just proves changed for him. it just proves how stupid he is from my perspective. >> okay. very >> okay. very >> he went after made >> also, he went after he made all his money, he went and bought same porsche back. bought the same porsche back. yeah, like ten years yeah, but he was like ten years later. so somebody else had been driving around, driving it around, totally hashing like hashing the gears and like picking their and like, picking their nose and like, flicking into the footwell

flicking it into the footwell for like ten years. so you don't want that porsche get a new one. >> okay . another question now >> okay. another question now from dave is an all white football team acceptable in this day and age is an all white football team except a football team. yes. and we're talking about arsenal, presumably. and we spoke about this on the show a couple of weeks ago because there was the photo of the arsenal women's football squad and white. and and they were all white. and there a big hoo ha about it. there was a big hoo ha about it. i now someone's i think. dave now someone's apologised. think they've apologised. i think they've apologised. i think they've apologised and said they apologised and said that they need community apologised and said that they need but community apologised and said that they need but you community apologised and said that they need but you know, community apologised and said that they need but you know, a mmunity apologised and said that they need but you know, a lot|unity apologised and said that they need but you know, a lot of ity better. but you know, a lot of the community morbidly the community are morbidly obese, aren't they? and is it the case that football teams should be required to have a bunch of heifers on the team to represent the community? well, they'd be good in goal, wouldn't they? >> yeah. why not? and we could extend it to other sports. you could have some good looking female golfers. you could have .

female golfers. you could have. >> but look, should they be apologising for this? i mean, like, wasn't the whole point of sport? i mean, sport, of all things really should be a meritocracy, shouldn't it? at that point? meritocracy, shouldn't it? at tha yeah. t? meritocracy, shouldn't it? at tha yeah. sport sport tool is it >> yeah. sport sport tool is it especially football. football is traditionally been at the cutting edge of provide adding opportunities to minorities . i opportunities to minorities. i don't know if anybody's seen the male teams so it's a bit unfair. i mean and also like people like millwall millwall fans get you know get accused of being racist because they're white working class and all the rest of it. but millwall in the 70s had more black players on their team than the guardian had. black journalists . so they're really journalists. so they're really out there doing the actual, you know, putting in the actual footwork to increase diversity. >> there's a lot of assumptions, aren't there? i think a lot of the accusations of things like white privilege systemic white privilege or systemic racism often working class racism and often working class people often accused of people are often accused of being brexit being this sort of racist brexit voting horde. but of course, working class people are the people they do associate people who are they do associate with races. you with people from all races. you know, the least racist know, they're the least racist

communities. absolutely. communities. well, absolutely. >> geoff who is >> i think geoff norcott, who is the only conservative comedian in uk , he said he used he in the uk, he said he used he used to have a routine about, you know, don't have a go at me for being racist. do you know, i grew up on council estates with these people, you know, in much these people, you know, in much the way as i did. sport the same way as i did. sport used to be about winning. and if you didn't win, it was about taking part. you didn't win, it was about tak thisiart. you didn't win, it was about tak this was his argument about >> this was his argument about he was an informed racist. yeah. yeah me how be no, >> don't tell me how to be no, it wasn't. don't tell me how to be racist. was. don't tell me be racist. it was. don't tell me i'm racist because i didn't. i i'm a racist because i didn't. i didn't i think. didn't associate. i think. >> think. what? upset >> i think. what? he's upset about sort very posh white about is sort of very posh white celebrities. he's berating everyone racism when everyone else for racism when they areas are they live in areas that are 99.9% white. yeah, i think that's the point, isn't it? yeah. we're going to move on to another question now from rob, where is rob? >> i would like to know if the panel would trust the raf if carol vorderman were flying the plane. this about leo >> so what's this about leo well, i wouldn't trust it if carol vorderman flying the carol vorderman was flying the plane she wouldn't be plane because she wouldn't be able see cockpit .

able to see over the cockpit. >> and also she can't fly. and those are two things you need now. this is about so carol vorderman is like the sort of mascot of an raf squadron or something like that. >> and she's the mascot, something like that, don't something like that, i don't think. don't think that's think. yeah i don't think that's what is . what she is. >> i think she she's not like gordon the gopher i think she's about the same size. >> can we start calling her carol voldemort ? because she carol voldemort? because she i mean, i don't care what she tweets, but does anyone care what carol vorderman thinks? so it doesn't matter what she tweets. it really doesn't matter. i'm more worried that the raf have made her an honorary group captain . honorary group captain. >> well, what's their thinking behind ? behind? >> know. unless we go to >> i don't know. unless we go to war to solve war and we have to solve conundrums . i doubt it's going conundrums. i doubt it's going to be of any use, to be honest. i mean, of course, you know, i don't know. maybe they all watched countdown and they thought she a she was lovely. >> is it transferable skills ? >> is it transferable skills? >> is it transferable skills? >> no, i haven't seen it so far. but i mean, i think the whole point is no one should care what

carol voldemort and i'm sticking to it tweets. no, i don't care what your tweets i miss. >> i miss her when she when she just flogged loans to confused old people. yeah recognised her from countdown. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> but everyone's got a right to express their views online. i mean i get annoyed sometimes when into major. mean i get annoyed sometimes whwyou into major. mean i get annoyed sometimes whwyou remember into major. mean i get annoyed sometimes whwyou remember when to major. mean i get annoyed sometimes whwyou remember when littlejor. mean i get annoyed sometimes whwyou remember when little mix do you remember when little mix criticised the uk government for bombing syria they know it bombing syria and they know it was worse than that because they actually the actually apologised to the people syria from the little people of syria from the little mix account . and you've mix twitter account. and you've just got to think like the people of syria think, oh thank god, mix have got god, i got little mix have got our backs. i just don't care what these people think about anything. >> no, it doesn't matter. i mean, i would never stop them. i mean, i would never stop them. i mean, we're best to see it, aren't we? it's great for comedy when got people like when you've got people like carol mix carol and little mix talking about matters. she's about serious matters. she's a she's a bit of a shrill, really, isn't she? just seems to be. isn't she? she just seems to be. she's not everything she says all of her political opinions are route one. they're very are route one. they're all very easy. like the easy. oh, i don't like the tories. tories are bad. i

tories. the tories are bad. i don't bad bad don't like bad things. bad things are bad . oh, well done. things are bad. oh, well done. >> and yet mathematically , she >> and yet mathematically, she can be very sophisticated. >> this is the problem again, isn't it? >> she's wonderful mathemata mission. >> well, that's all we've got time for this section. but do time for in this section. but do join after the break. when join us after the break. when i'm going to be talking to gb news own .

radio. so i'm here at the battle of ideas at church house in

westminster. >> as you can see, there's quite a big gathering here to debate the major issues of the day. if you follow me, we'll go into one of the venues. so as you can see from what's going on, there's lots of people around. it's very busy. always here, but busy. it's always busy here, but there's various stalls there's these various stalls around well of various around and as well of various people doing various things. this joyce. helen, do this is helen joyce. helen, do you if i catch you? you mind if i catch you? >> lovely to talk to you, andrew. always. how are you? i'm very well. i'm getting over the philly two weeks philly flu from two weeks ago. all feminists in glasgow, all the feminists up in glasgow, i'd half of us came home i'd say half of us came home unable and dying. unable to speak and dying. they could gender could have got gender self—id through week they had through that week if they had tried you know, half of tried because, you know, half of feminist its bed. feminist britain was in its bed. may noticed, andrew, that may have noticed, andrew, that we're and we in two we're mammals and we come in two sexes mostly that doesn't sexes and mostly that doesn't much matter. sometimes much matter. but sometimes it does when it does matter. and when it matters, that matters. matters, it's sex that matters. so what we're about is about clarity, law and clarity, about sex in law and everyday and if don't everyday life. and if you don't have that it is women have that clarity, it is women and children who suffer. >> a lot of crowds are >> and quite a lot of crowds are going have to wade through. going to have to wade through. this is simon fanshawe. hello, simon. hello. >> hello, andrew doyle. simon. hello. >> i'mlo, andrew doyle. simon. hello. >> i'm very 1drew doyle. simon. hello.

>> i'm very excited oyle.my day >> i'm very excited and my day is improved by saying >> i'm very excited and my day is to improved by saying >> i'm very excited and my day is to you. 'oved by saying hello to you. >> he's such a flatterer. this could be quite hazardous. yes, there here, so do be there are steps here, so do be careful. battle ideas is careful. the battle of ideas is such an incredible event. it's busier than ever busier this year than i've ever seen clearly there's an seen it. so clearly there's an appetite do that. seen it. so clearly there's an appdidn't do that. seen it. so clearly there's an appdidn't you?that. >> didn't you? >> didn't you? >> didn't you? >> did i? do you think they're here to see me? i think that's the hem of your garment. well i think that's very flattering, but certainly true. but almost certainly not true. why it's becoming why do you think it's becoming more more popular on more and more popular year on year out? >> because everyone's gone >> well, because everyone's gone mad and it's always good to be in place where you've in a place where you've got a bit of common being spoken in a place where you've got a bit and ommon being spoken in a place where you've got a bit and secondly, being spoken in a place where you've got a bit and secondly, thatjeing spoken in a place where you've got a bit and secondly, that we're spoken to. and secondly, that we're actually to terms with actually coming to terms with all the various aspects that all the various aspects of that madness. trying some madness. i'm trying to put some rationale it's really rationale behind it. it's really trying out what's going trying to work out what's going on in the oh, look who it on in the world. oh, look who it is. >> cressida wetton from >> it's cressida wetton from tv's so it is. tv's headliners. so it is. >> that. yeah, i'm >> imagine that. yeah, i'm having lovely yeah. having a lovely day. yeah. >> are you on any of the panels today? >> yeah. in defence of drag. of drag. yes. yeah. yeah. okay >> you be in drag for that? >> will you be in drag for that? >> will you be in drag for that? >> be. won't be. but >> i won't be. i won't be. but then again, we're all in drag or something. no, i don't know.

i've a great week watching i've had a great week watching loads think i'm pro. loads of drag. i think i'm pro. >> sandwich have got. >> what sandwich have you got. >> what sandwich have you got. >> smoked salmon and >> this is smoked salmon and cream cheese. >> i have to say, i think the catering is pretty good here, you find yeah. you know, to find out. yeah. i mean, let's face it, this is a fire hazard. but all right, fire hazard. but it's all right, david, why have you come to the battle of ideas? >> i'm a trainee. clinical psychology out a course, and psychology out on a course, and i that free speech isn't i find that free speech isn't something that's celebrated there i'd like it to there as much as i'd like it to be. >> want to tell people >> do you want to tell people what lgb alliance is all about? >> yeah, lgb alliance is a charity focusing on rights charity focusing on the rights of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals on basis sexual bisexuals on the basis of sexual orientation. to battle >> i've come to the battle of ideas to listen to what people who special specialist who have special specialist knowledge on the controversies that are happening right now. james, to tell james, do you want to tell people why you're here? >> well, because i'm admirer, >> well, because i'm an admirer, a fan? >> because i'd like to be as funny as you. >> blimey. okay. i've got competition. what do you make of the battle of ideas, james? >> well, controversy is a good thing. we need more of it. you know, out of heat, light. >> and my next guest is gb news

own . neil oliver. thank you own. neil oliver. thank you. thank you so much for being here. i'm thrilled to have you on the show. i've been a long admirer of your work and you have a new book that i want to talk to you about. it's called hauntings a book of ghosts and where to find them. i was fascinated this book. fascinated by this book. firstly, brilliantly firstly, it's brilliantly written, not just written, but it's also not just about the ghost stories. it's also about history. as well and how the intertwined. do you how the two intertwined. do you want us bit about it? want to tell us a bit about it? >> yeah, obviously we are living through interesting times through very interesting times these years these last few years and i always to try and give always have to try and give myself something else to think about as well as everything else. going and my else. that's going on. and my first passion, i suppose my first passion, i suppose my first has always been first love has always been history and archaeology. and i wanted to come at history and archaeology a slightly archaeology from a slightly different direction. and so archaeology from a slightly differnhadiirection. and so archaeology from a slightly differnhad always|. and so archaeology from a slightly differnhad always been so archaeology from a slightly differnhad always been ao there had always been a recurring experience i'd recurring experience that i'd had filming on location

had with filming on location from academics through to from sober academics through to members of the public. people with all sorts of specialities would be on a battlefield or would be on a battlefield or would be on a battlefield or would be in a ruined abbey or would be in a ruined abbey or would be in a ruined abbey or would be in a castle and more times than i could count, people would say in a break in filming, you know, don't tell anyone. but a ago, the strangest a few years ago, the strangest thing happened to me. then thing happened to me. and then we'd was effectively we'd unfold what was effectively a ghost story. and so i had built up a bit of a compendium of those of those experiences. and more than anything else, i just became determined to consider what it is in the in human nature . that means that human nature. that means that we've shared these kinds of stories and experiences with one another for, well, for thousands of years. >> well, i want to read a quotation from the book itself. you say scratch the surface of our publicly stated beliefs and we ourselves privately we may find ourselves privately admitting our own admitting to times in our own lives logic and reason said lives when logic and reason said one thing while our gut said another. it seem to me that another. it does seem to me that even if you were a complete atheist and you have no belief whatsoever in the supernatural, well, moments in life

well, there are moments in life where experience what we where we experience what we might the numinous, might call the numinous, something that connects us to something that connects us to something outside of ourselves. this universal experience, this is a universal experience, isn't is. i think >> i think it is. i think especially i think in the largely secular west once once you don't have once people aren't so comfortable and confident talking about maybe the transcendent or the numinous or whatever you find yourself distanced from from suitable and helpful vocabulary in order to articulate certain kinds of experiences . experiences. >> and i think there's no denying that most people , even denying that most people, even people who would be avowed atheists, people who would say they don't have any belief in anything beyond the here and now and, you know, you're born, you die. most people have experi audiences have a sense in a place every now and again of something that's inexplicable and perhaps makes them feel insignificant in the scheme of things . and they perhaps get things. and they perhaps get a sense of something strange. you know, even archie roy, who was the who had the chair of astronomy at glasgow university,

he also had a chair of parapsychology at glasgow university. and even although he was a scientist of such renowned that he was part of plotting the orbits for the apollo landings on moon, he also made room on the moon, he also made room for the scientific study of poltergeists and all of the rest of it. and he basically he basically said, i have throughout my life been aware of a sense of something strange. and i think perhaps that is quite a useful summary of what a lot of people feel and to what extent are you i mean, you as a historian, are you connected to the past? >> are you drawn to the past? and in what sense does past and in what sense does the past inform are today? in your view? >> i think find the past very >> i think i find the past very helpful. i've always found it to be a reservoir or an encyclopaedia of ways in which people in the past have have confronted the eternal verities and challenges and whatever . and and challenges and whatever. and i think it's sometimes always instructive actually to look at the way and consider the ways in which they face their challenges, because those those can be helpful for us as we face

our own challenges. but i just i feel that it's so much a profound part of the human experience to be aware of the past, to be aware of our own ancestors, you know, to be aware of family members that were here for part of our lives but are no longer with us. and people continue to feel connections to those various ways those people in various ways that are hard to articulate and it comes down to us as ghost stories. but i it comes down to us as ghost stories. buti genuinely it comes down to us as ghost stories. but i genuinely feel there's much more going on there . yes, that science and in any other way we ought to we ought to open ourselves up to contemplating the way your book is structured is each chapter you outline the historical background of a particular location across the british isles. >> and then you mention some of these ghost stories that have been told over the years and how they relate to the history. but you don't really make a judgement about whether you believe authentic believe that they're authentic or not. >> well , no, just i've always >> well, no, i just i've always felt in many areas that i kind of agnosticism or a kind of open mindedness is just way

mindedness is just the best way to approach of topics. but to approach a lot of topics. but they're not all strictly ghost stories in the conventional sense. there's a story stories in the conventional se there there's a story stories in the conventional se there that's there's a story stories in the conventional se there that's on ere's a story stories in the conventional se there that's on the; a story stories in the conventional se there that's on the isle tory stories in the conventional se there that's on the isle of/ in there that's on the isle of skye and it's about from the 1930 onwards. for decades , more 1930 onwards. for decades, more people than you could possibly count reported an encounter with a little black car . and the a little black car. and the experience was always the same. a small black car would be seen to be approaching along a single track road, often at speed. people would pull in ready to let this thing come past and it would just disappear. it would. it would disappear into dead ground never come . and ground and never come. and tourists told it, the locals told it. they all had these children would look out for the wee black car every time they were out. and sometimes you would see it, sometimes they wouldn't. the 1960s, there wouldn't. in the 1960s, there was on the on the was a tragedy on the on the approach to ferry back to approach to the ferry back to the a little black car the mainland a little black car fell off of the ferry into the water, and a woman, two women and a child drowned. one man escaped, but it was it was a

little black car. and most of the sightings of the little black car had been on the road approaching the where the ferry left for the mainland after that tragedy the 1960s. the little tragedy in the 1960s. the little black car was never seen again. it just phenomenon stopped. it just that phenomenon stopped. although had known. well although it had been known. well known, well spoken about for decades. and it stopped. and you think is that? that's not a think what is that? that's not a ghost story . we know that seems ghost story. we know that seems to be some kind of collective shared premonition that once the event that had been the premonition or a version of it actually unfolded in in real time in the real world, it was gone. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> how do you make sense of that? because not all of these people were lying . even if you people were lying. even if you assume that some of them were. yes. lot of these people were yes. a lot of these people were having an encounter that they couldn't explain any other way. and then. >> but that's interesting, isn't it? people are it? we assume that people are making up. a story making it up. there's a story here about sandwood bay where you someone saw you talk about someone who saw a mermaid. now, i don't think that person is lying. i mean, walter de la the poet, claimed de la mare, the poet, claimed he'd a mermaid. he'd encounter a mermaid. i think are types of think there are certain types of

people have a visionary people that have a visionary quality them, creative quality about them, creative people their people and i think from their perspective, do see these things. there's no doubt in my mind >> there's no doubt in my mind that the majority of the people that the majority of the people that recounted things to me, they're not lying. >> some people are. some people want the attention and they'll make they'll make a story up just for fun or just to get attention. but the majority of these people, especially the matter in which matter of fact, way in which they recount the story people are phenomena. i are experiencing phenomena. i absolutely believe that having an authentic experience and it's not enough just to dismiss it all as ghost stories. and just finally , neal, one of the most finally, neal, one of the most interesting aspects of your book is the way in which you invoke the memory of your father, your late father, and you say that actually his passing and your reflections that affect you reflections on that affect you as you were writing the book and actually changed your perspective the world you perspective of the world as you were very i mean, were writing? very much. i mean, my dad died a couple of years, nearly three years ago now. and i've i've i've begun, you know, for example, unusual for example, it's not an unusual experience. but when i when

for example, it's not an unusual elookence. but when i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in:e. but when i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in theiut when i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in the mirror when i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in the mirror or hen i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in the mirror or ifen i when for example, it's not an unusual elook in the mirror or if i'm,vhen i look in the mirror or if i'm, you know, i catch my reflection in in a way in which i never used to, i see my dad, you know, i see dad's face so that, you i see my dad's face so that, you know, i can see my i can, i can see him haunting my physiognomy, so to speak. and i've i've dreamt about my dad and i had i had time that i spent with my dad towards the end of his life when he was when he was dying in the few weeks of his life, the last few weeks of his life, you where we shared you know, where we shared experiences and we said things to another that had never to one another that we had never we come anywhere close we had never come anywhere close to know , prior to to seeing, you know, prior to his prior to his last few days. and it it just fundamentally, i was to going write the book anyway, but that happened before i had actually put pen to paper , i had actually put pen to paper, so to speak. and he undoubtedly haunts the in the same way haunts the book in the same way that haunts me. that he haunts me. >> well, it's a very powerful book. hauntings book. it's called hauntings a book and where find book of ghosts and where to find them. thank you so them. neil oliver, thank you so much. you . thank you. much. thank you. thank you. >> and join us after the break where i'll be speaking to the

philosopher peter bogosian .

gb news radio. >> welcome back to free speech nation. >> with me, andrew doyle. i'm delighted to welcome my next guest, the american writer and philosopher peter bogosian .

philosopher peter bogosian. peter lovely to see you as ever. good to be here. >> good to be here. >> good to be here. >> now, one of the things that you do that not many people will be aware of is a thing called street epistemology, which sounds very, very scary and academic, but actually it's pretty straightfonnard, it? >> right. we go around >> right. so we go around the world ask people why they world and we ask people why they believe what they believe, and we have mats or lines of tape that place on the ground and that we place on the ground and strongly disagree , disagree, strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree neutral, and then agree on the other side . then agree on the other side. and then we'll just raise questions to people and we'll see if the confidence they have in the belief. in other words, if the line they're on is justified by the reason and evidence they have. >> so you're actually getting members of the public to move depending where stand on depending on where they stand on any particular issue. so you can see visually where people stand. but other things that but one of the other things that you that's quite interesting you do that's quite interesting is what would it take is you say, what would it take for to move from this for you to move from this position this particular

position on this particular question position? position on this particular quecorrect. position? position on this particular quecorrect. would tion? position on this particular quecorrect. would itm? position on this particular quecorrect. would it take >> correct. what would it take to your mind? piece to change your mind? what piece of you have to of evidence would you have to hear? reason would have hear? what reason would you have to argument would you to hear? what argument would you have hear not to move from have to hear not to move from strongly to strongly strongly agree to strongly disagree, just line. disagree, butjust one line. so if you're slightly agree, if you're on slightly agree, what for take you what would it for take you to move to neutral? would it move to neutral? what would it take for you to move the take for you to move to the agree line? because you wrote a book how to have book called how to have impossible conversations. book called how to have impossi co—wrote rsations. book called how to have impossi co—wrote that)ns. book called how to have impossi co—wrote that with james >> you co—wrote that with james lindsay. that's lindsay. and i think that's a really fantastic book because as many feel we've sort many of us feel that we've sort of the art of having of lost the art of having debate, of disagreeing without it all flaring and becoming it all flaring up and becoming very is that very personal. well, is that do you think the case or do you think that is the case or do you think that is the case or do you think that we can get that back? >> yeah, i think we can get that back. i've learned a lot from going around the country, going around world and asking around the world and asking people. originally this in people. i originally did this in the where i asked prison the prisons where i asked prison inmates believed and inmates what they believed and why, believed why inmates what they believed and why, believe believed why inmates what they believed and why, believe whatieved why inmates what they believed and why, believe what they why inmates what they believed and why, believe what they believe.( they believe what they believe. and were something and those answers were something quite from quite interesting. but from burying friends burying dead, helping friends burying dead, helping friends bury other things bury dead bodies to other things that i won't mention live tv, that i won't mention on live tv, but we one of the things that i've learned is it's not an

academic thing, but there's just basic about what basic confusion about what people mean by words and what people mean by terms. >> but sometimes it does flare up even in your street epistemology exercises. and actually, we do have clip actually, we do have a clip of one those moments where it one of those moments where it got bit heated. let's have got a bit heated. let's have a look that. look at that. >> anyone who does not have the same opinion as you is a bigoted woman able to woman should not be able to compete in women's sports. >> has transphobic beliefs. point blank period. trans women are women. therefore if they compete in women's sports , it compete in women's sports, it does get heated . does get heated. >> yes, people do get upset quite clearly. i mean, you do deal with some of the more sensitive topics . now, are you sensitive topics. now, are you doing that deliberately ? doing that deliberately? precisely because no one's having the debates . yes. having the debates. yes. >> or the academies have failed us. us. >> us. >> the institutions have failed us. legacy media has failed us. so we need to take it out of the academy and bring it to the streets. so we need to give people these tools to people these tools for how to have conversation the have a conversation across the divide calibrate what divide to how to calibrate what they believe to the evidence.

okay >> so hang on a minute, because i want to i want to explore that a little bit more. you're talking about how the academy has us it comes to has failed us when it comes to these are you saying has failed us when it comes to thesipeople are you saying has failed us when it comes to thesipeople inire you saying has failed us when it comes to thesipeople in higher saying has failed us when it comes to thesipeople in higher education that people in higher education are not having the are simply not having the debates anymore? >> they're not having >> they're they're not having the that's not how i'd frame it. >> that's not how i'd frame it. there are certain moral positions that one has to take. and doesn't take it, it's and if one doesn't take it, it's not that is merely wrong, not that one is merely wrong, but that they're a bad person. so the conversation has shifted from person doesn't have from this person doesn't have sets information. that's what sets of information. that's what socrates argued, that you just missing of information missing pieces of information from that you're a bad person i >> -- >> yes. the assumption that the slightest point of disagreement is evidence of malevolence, correct? right now you have experienced this yourself. >> you were a professor at portland state university. >> correct. >> correct. >> and you're not anymore . and >> and you're not anymore. and when say to of god and you when you say to of god and you when you say to of god and you when you say to of god and you when you resigned, i mean, that was quite a big deal because you put your resignation letter out there and that went viral for those who didn't catch that, do you want to explain what was

your leaving university? >> university hired me to >> the university hired me to teach critical thinking and teach critical thinking and teach ethics. >> and that became increasingly difficult at the university. really became a factory of social justice or critical social justice or critical social justice. and any kind of independent free thought in which you didn't toe the line was was truly punished. most hardly. investigations committees. so it was really not only was it a nightmare for me in an emotional and personal psychological level , but it made psychological level, but it made it absolutely impossible for me to do what they hired me to do. >> but what sort of things were happening to you? >> literally, truly, you would not believe it like i was accused of. okay all right. we have time . i accused of. okay all right. we have time. i was accused of. okay all right. we have time . i was accused of have time. i was accused of virtually everything that you could think of. that one could be accused . every kind of be accused. every kind of accusation . there was a constant accusation. there was a constant investigation of me about something. title nine in the united states, title nine investigation is a very serious. i was told at one point in one

of my investigations i could not render my opinion about a protected class or or teach in any way that my opinion about a protected class could be known . protected class could be known. and when i was told that , i protected class could be known. and when i was told that, i said not flippantly but very sincerely, what would i do if a student asked me if i think african americans should be put in chains and sold as chattel? because if i said no matter what i said, i'd be rendering my opinion. of course, the response to that was silence . so we have to that was silence. so we have entire wings of university architecture that are dedicated to promoting the ideology and i asked very sincerely why ? why is asked very sincerely why? why is it that you're targeting me ? why it that you're targeting me? why don't you target literal the whole field of gender studies? that's all it does. why don't you target an entire what? what is it about the opinions? and it's not even the opinions. it's the it's the idea that there's a way to think about something and

that full disclosure, i didn't vote for trump. i think he's a lunatic. but but i tried to make it clear why someone would think that that's a good option and it's doing that itself . if they it's doing that itself. if they thought of that as a kind of white supremacy, as .a kind of, you know , tool of the you know, tool of the patriarchy. so they don't need to understand another perspective, even that is attempting to understand another perspective is a microaggression students could get triggered. they could need psychological counselling . counselling. >> i'm surprised you lasted as long as you did. i'm surprised to you i'm surprised too. >> but frankly, the health care was terrific. that's one of the main reasons i stayed. >> but isn't innovation and discovery partly about free thinking and bucking the trend ? thinking and bucking the trend? >> i mean, where would someone like galileo end up in today's system? >> but i'm going to argue, as somebody who's court who believes this. i think that what i'm about say just truly i'm about to say is just truly deranged. but i'm going say deranged. but i'm going to say it anyway. okay that's not the purpose of the institution. the

purpose of the institution. the purpose of the institution. the purpose of the institution is to remediate oppression, is to find oppression , is to give people oppression, is to give people tools so that they can identify racism, , homophobia. and racism, sexism, homophobia. and we're going to train generations of people so that we can disrupt and dismantle the existing system architecture. >> but then that's not a university. that's a training ground for activists. >> that's right. you can look at it as a kind of marxist ideological training or a catholic catechism. >> so then what do we do about it? because ultimately we have this know this situation where we know that universities are that most universities now are ideologically captured or at least trained least effectively trained students to think in a certain way in other words, they are factories conformism , right? factories of conformism, right? which the opposite of what which is the opposite of what they so how they should be there for. so how do on a practical level, how do we on a practical level, how do we on a practical level, how do we on a practical level, how do we change things? >> there are only two solutions. >> there are only two solutions. >> before i tell you those, i want to offer you something to think think about think about. think about training for a fight. if you're training for a fight. if you're training for a fight, you would be far better off looking at a wall socket for 60 minutes than

you would be to train in such a way as to increase the likelihood that you'd lose a fight. so, for example, to put your arms down here when someone could just punch you in the head so you'd be better off doing literally nothing since hilaly with our academic institutions , with our academic institutions, you'd be better off not knowing you'd be better off not knowing you'd be better off not knowing you'd be better off looking at a door for 60 minutes or for four years. you're actually save yourself a tonne of to money you'd be better off looking at a door than you would be to learn a process that would take you away reality . so only two away from reality. so only two options. there are only two things i'll tell you what i believe, but that's just my opinion. you can make your own decision . we fix the decision. one we fix the existing universities. i personally don't believe that's possible . people are trying to possible. people are trying to do that in the united states. governor desantis is trying to do that in florida. i personally don't think that's possible, but that's one response. the other one the what i believe is you one is the what i believe is you have to build new things. you have to build new things. you have have a kind of parallel have to have a kind of parallel structure in place so that you

have academic institutions , for have academic institutions, for example, value truth and example, that value truth and then you have those that value social justice or oppression or what have you. and then we can let those compete in a broader marketplace. the problem that marketplace. the problem is that the very structures the very governing structures and institutions, example , and institutions, for example, accreditation boards, they all participate in the ideology. so you'd have to have some way that those institutions could opt out and then students could be given and then students could be given a choice of what kind of education they want to have. >> okay, peter, that's very clear. i hope that we're to clear. i hope that we're able to do way. i hope so. do that in some way. i hope so. peter bogosian, thanks much peter bogosian, thanks so much for joining thank you . and forjoining me. thank you. and do join us after the break when i'll be speaking to australian academic holly lawford smith, who .

so i'm here with claire fox , who

so i'm here with claire fox, who has organised the battle of ideas for many, many years. this is just the latest incarnation. it's looking it's so busy, it's going really well. i think you can tell that we live in serious times because we've sold more tickets than ever before , but tickets than ever before, but there's a lot more people here. >> and what's really fantastic is just that people here do not agree with each other . it's agree with each other. it's definitely not an echo chamber , definitely not an echo chamber, but the sense of solidarity and common ardrey is based on the fact that everyone here is taking ideas seriously , and i'm taking ideas seriously, and i'm prepared to listen to differences of opinion. and the more people who believe that, you know what i think is wrong or that the those of us who get labelled anti—woke not expression i like if you disagree with us, then come and have the argument out. i want to improve the level of political discourse in this country and i can't do that by going into groups. think so. you know, come along, let's have it out. >> hi maya. can i ask you a quick question? how are you? >> i'm good. >> i'm good. >> very good. have you been able

to see many sessions here or have you mostly been focusing on sex matters? >> dipping in and out? yeah. okay. but really okay. yeah but it's really important, isn't it? >> the of ideas. what >> the battle of ideas. what they i think. they do, i think. >> it's brilliant. it's >> yeah, it's brilliant. it's almost place you almost the only place where you hear different ideas and hear so many different ideas and freedom of speech life. freedom of speech is given life. yeah, exactly. you to yeah, exactly. do you want to just tell about sex just quickly tell us about sex matters it is you're matters and what it is you're doing? we are single issue doing? yes, we are single issue campaign to clarify sex in law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policyto clarify sex in law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policy in clarify sex in law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policy in the fy sex in law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policy in the ukiex in law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policy in the uk there law doing? yes, we are single issue cam policy in the uk there are and policy in the uk there are two and people can't two sexes and people can't change sex. and that matters in some situations. sports, prisons in and so in schools, safeguarding. and so on. trying to get on. we're just trying to get back to sense about sex in law and policy. >> very well put. thanks, maya. well, i recognise you . well, i recognise you. >> hello again. how are you doing? >> okay. i know you people. why don't. why don't you? well, that's creepy. why don't you. why don't you tell the audience what you do? yeah, of course. >> we're speakeasy national movement. >> we're here to give an alternative to people on university campuses feeling they're free they're not getting their free speech. they're not talking about >> and they're not talking about the issues that really m atter. >> matter. >> right. yeah. i was >> right. okay. yeah. i was going you seem

going to say, you seem considerably most considerably younger than most people possibly. people here, quite possibly. andrew that a good andrew but isn't that a good thing? mean, i would suggest thing? i mean, i would suggest that of that firstly, the battle of ideas discounts for ideas gives great discounts for younger people. they want to get younger people. they want to get younger people. they want to get younger people involved in debate of it. and debate and the rest of it. and i don't think i don't don't think there is i don't think young people are automatically against free speech. that's myth, right? >> no, definitely not. a lot of students want free speech. you go you ask, would go into campus, you ask, would you hear something you like to hear something against would you like to expand you like to hear something agairknowledge?u like to expand you like to hear something agairknowledge?u likeof expand you like to hear something agairknowledge?u like of thewand your knowledge? most of the times obviously, a lot times is yes. obviously, a lot of people aren't free speech, absolute but most of them do absolute is. but most of them do want to different types of want to hear different types of opinions what we're opinions and that's what we're trying campus. trying to do on our campus. >> these opinion polls, >> so all these opinion polls, all this, there's that's all this, there's nobody that's for there's nobody for free speech. there's nobody that views on that holds these views on campus. it's not true. they just can't out it. and can't speak out about it. and these of events actually these kind of events actually allow along and allow people to come along and speak better. as you know, speak out better. as you know, there are quite a few young people in the room and that's great. their and great. they have their voice and young be our young people are going to be our future. the future is not as future. and the future is not as dark as some might feel dark as some people might feel here. here to show you. here. so we're here to show you. there people that there are young people that actually sense. great

>> e- great >> very much. thank >> thank you very much. thank you. free speech you. welcome back to free speech nation. is an nation. my next guest is an australian academic. is the australian academic. she is the author of a new book called sex matters. welcome matters. please welcome holly lawford. , thanks lawford. smith hey, look, thanks so much forjoining us. >> welcome to the show. >> welcome to the show. >> your book, sex matters already . we know that that is a already. we know that that is a topic that a lot of people are nervous about, even the recognition of biological reality when it comes to sex causes all sorts of problems. what is the thesis of your book? >> well, the book is a collection of philosophy papers that i couldn't get published . that i couldn't get published. >> so it proves my point then? >> so it proves my point then? >> yeah, i think it does. yeah. so i started writing in about 2018 on gender critical feminism , gender critical philosophy and having the experience. i think that peter was nicely describing where there was a lot of gatekeeping going on ideological gatekeeping. either just flat gatekeeping. so either just flat out rejections from journals or in retrospect, hilarious reports from referees about how morally wrong the arguments were and how objection able or marginalise

and vulnerable communities, whatever . and so at that time , and vulnerable communities, whatever. and so at that time , i whatever. and so at that time, i decided i would try to get a book contract to gather all my heretical thoughts together for yes, heretical is the word , right? >> so what is it you were saying that was so horrible and objectionable ? objectionable? >> well, there are papers in that book on what is gender and what do they want it to be? they the trans activists. there's a paper on whether terf is a slur, whether gender critical speech is hate speech , and actually the is hate speech, and actually the one i'm most proud of and maybe was the most controversial is about sex self—identification and costly signals . and that's and costly signals. and that's asking whether there is anything that a man who wants to be a woman or feels he is a woman. is there anything he could do that would signal to women that he is not a threat to any of their interests? i see. and i argue that there's nothing. okay and so i'm kind of still baffled that that book got published. yeah >> so a lot of people won't know

that there's a different kind of situation in australia to here. >> i mean, we share some of the same yes. but we also same problems. yes. but we also have different problems, same problems. yes. but we also have we? different problems, same problems. yes. but we also have we? canferent problems, same problems. yes. but we also have we? can you|t problems, same problems. yes. but we also have we? can you give blems, same problems. yes. but we also have we? can you give usims, same problems. yes. but we also have we? can you give us some don't we? can you give us some information that? don't we? can you give us some inchellion that? don't we? can you give us some inchell ,in that? don't we? can you give us some inchell , so that? don't we? can you give us some inchell , so i'm that? don't we? can you give us some inchell , so i'm from.? don't we? can you give us some inchell , so i'm from victoria. >> well, so i'm from victoria. i live in melbourne and this is the most progressive . we have to the most progressive. we have to put it in air quotes, whatever the word. >> it's really progressive, but by its own lights , the most by its own lights, the most progressive state. >> so we have already sex self—id we have already conversion therapy ban, which is yeah , effectively mandating yeah, effectively mandating affirmation only approaches to gender identity . and we are gender identity. and we are currently consulting on vilification law that would make that would introduce hate speech on the grounds of gender identity and that is a threat to gender critical speech across the board. so we have the things that you guys are like worrying about getting. >> already got them. >> you've already got them. >> you've already got them. >> we've already got them. >> we've already got them. >> i mean, was an >> yeah. i mean, there was an article recently in the daily mail worry mail talking about the worry that labour get in, which that if labour get in, which they probably will, they will

instigate hate speech instigate a stronger hate speech laws weaponized laws that will be weaponized against particular laws that will be weaponized ag anyone particular laws that will be weaponized ag anyone wantsiarticular laws that will be weaponized ag anyone wants to .icular laws that will be weaponized ag anyone wants to sayar laws that will be weaponized ag anyone wants to say that or anyone who wants to say that sex is immutable, that that no human ever changed human being has ever changed sex. in other words, people were wanting facts , which wanting to express facts, which is a worry, right? >> yeah . i mean, it's very >> yeah. i mean, it's very interesting, i guess, because it must i know , it's the must as far as i know, it's the first time that a marginalised groups protected person is said to depend on on a lie. right? so because of course all the rhetoric about this is that like, that's what it takes to protect trans equality or that's what it takes to protect trans dignity, that that you you must affirm one's a person's sense of identity if they feel such distress about it that is an important thing to do, right? make people respect their dignity, inequality . but make people respect their dignity, inequality. but i make people respect their dignity, inequality . but i can't dignity, inequality. but i can't think of any other case in history where a minority minority groups inclusion has depended on. yeah, the social going along with this falsehood, but there are precedents in history where certain metaphysical beliefs have been forced onto a population as whole. >> yes , and i think that's sort

>> yes, and i think that's sort of what's happening if of what's happening here. if there contingent people there are a contingent of people who believe that they have a gendered kind of gendered soul, a kind of essence, of us don't essence, most of us don't believe most us believe that. most of us don't have identity or have a gender identity or believe identity . believe in a gender identity. right. difference is in right. but the difference is in a society, get to a liberal society, they get to believe we get to believe that and we get to believe that and we get to believe what we believe. and everyone gets and fine. everyone gets on and it's fine. but saying that but now we're saying that everyone go along with everyone has to go along with that belief. think the that belief. i think that's the distinction. that belief. i think that's the disiyeah.n. again, i mean, >> yeah. although again, i mean, there some historians there must be some historians that speak back to this that could speak back to this point like i'm just thinking throughout history , we it must throughout history, we it must be that things are often cloaked in the rhetoric of incredible harm and it's just a new truth. but this is how to protect the vulnerable . and then and then vulnerable. and then and then there's a sort of reckoning over time that no, okay, that's actually a system of ideas. and then we quarantine it off and we have mutual toleration , even if have mutual toleration, even if i'm right, that that's how it usually goes, then, yeah, this is just another one where it's like, no , it's just about a like, oh no, it's just about a minority group harm. but minority group and harm. but eventually no,

eventually it'll be like, oh no, that just weird of that was just a weird set of metaphysical commitments. that was just a weird set of me' i iphysical commitments. that was just a weird set of me'i mean,il commitments. that was just a weird set of me'i mean, i commitments. that was just a weird set of me'i mean, i ofteniitments. that was just a weird set of me'i mean, i often invite its. >> i mean, i often invite trans activists this show and activists onto this show and they never agreed to on. so they never agreed to come on. so firstly, there's issue. if they never agreed to come on. so firstlwon't'e's issue. if they never agreed to come on. so firstlwon't agree issue. if they never agreed to come on. so firstlwon't agree to isue. if they never agreed to come on. so firstlwon't agree to talk if they never agreed to come on. so firstlwon't agree to talk to me. they won't agree to talk to me. yes. so many of yes. but secondly, so many of the articles read the books and articles i've read by activists, start by the activists, they start from the concept that any disagreement form of hate . disagreement is a form of hate. yes. and also intuit that yes. and they also intuit that what is going on in their in their detractors minds. so they decide, for instance, i mean, i've met a lot of gender critical i've never critical feminists. i've never met any hateful, gender critical feminists. i've never met any gender critical feminists who just people that from just hate trans people that from what see, that doesn't what i can see, that doesn't really . right. but they really exist. right. but they say gender critical. say they're all gender critical. feminists are inherently hateful. they hateful. so why are they not just on a great just mind reading on a great scale ? scale? >> like , it's tempting >> i mean, like, it's tempting to say yes, but i guess i can think of examples where where you do get these extremely calm . you do get these extremely calm. i think the word the propaganda theorist uses like technicist propaganda , where you get these propaganda, where you get these calm, scholarly types that just like wheel out a lot of science and say they just want to talk

about the facts. it's just a matter of the truth. they don't hate but stuff hate anyone but the stuff they're actually like they're saying is actually like degrading undermining of degrading or undermining of a particular group's standing . particular group's standing. yes. so that can happen, right? sure. and i think the question is. so they accusing us of is. so they are accusing us of doing that. it's not impossible. all we're that like all that we're doing that like it's possible. >> are you doing that? >> are you doing that? >> doing that. i haven't >> i'm not doing that. i haven't seen any sign that any of us are doing but but it's not doing that. but but it's not like i guess i'm just saying it has happened in some cases, so i can sort of see their . can sort of see their. >> but because it's happened on a few cases, it doesn't it doesn't follow that that is there for what is happening in all cases. no of course. >> yeah but but they have their ideology . right. and from their ideology. right. and from their point of view they have a view of what liberation looks of what trans liberation looks like . and from their point of like. and from their point of view, are thwarting that outcome. >> but what is that outcome ? >> but what is that outcome? isn't that everyone isn't the outcome that everyone accepts and accepts their point of view and implements and implements it in society and pubuc implements it in society and public policy, right? implements it in society and putthatolicy, right? implements it in society and putthat is cy, right? implements it in society and putthat is theirjht? implements it in society and putthat is their aim. yeah. but >> that is their aim. yeah. but but essentially but that is an essentially authoritarian measure. but that is an essentially aut soitarian measure. but that is an essentially aut so they're neasure. but that is an essentially aut so they're effectively saying

>> so they're effectively saying everyone accepts it. >> not authoritarian . >> that's not authoritarian. even everyone accepts the even if everyone accepts the hearts of the public, hearts and minds of the public, i don't think they're really interested and interested in winning hearts and minds interested in winning hearts and miriis interested in winning hearts and miri don't know if sending death >> i don't know if sending death threats people calling threats at people and calling them going to win over anyone. >> you might be right. >> you might be right. >> if i'm honest. okay. well, holly, very much for holly, thanks very much for joining really joining me today. really appreciate . there's a lot appreciate it. there's a lot more coming up in the second hour of free speech nation. i'm going to be talking to the co—directors of ideas beyond borders as as australian borders, as well as australian mp deeming. we'll also mp moira deeming. we'll also have some more questions from our wonderful live studio audience. do not go anywhere .

very good evening to you. >> i'm erin armstrong in the newsroom. let's get you up to date with the headlines. as israel claims to have killed dozens of militants direct dozens of militants in direct clashes with hamas in northern gaza , the israeli military says gaza, the israeli military says the hamas fighters were killed leaving a tunnel near the erez crossing , which previously crossing, which previously unked crossing, which previously linked gaza to israel. now the idf says it's been massively bombarding gaza from the air to ensure the safety of its ground forces and to eliminate what it calls terror infrastructure. the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has called this the

second phase of a three week old war. meanwhile, the united nafionsis war. meanwhile, the united nations is warning civil order in gaza is beginning to collapse after thousands of people broke into aid depots in a desperate search for basic supplies . search for basic supplies. unwra, the un. agency for palestinian refugees, says it's an indication people in gaza have reached breaking point with their patients and ability to take any more , which is at rock take any more, which is at rock bottom. residents have endured 36 hours of israeli bombardments , but some communications have now been restored after a total blackout. meanwhile, the palestinian red crescent says israel's told them to immediately evacuate the al—quds hospital, which is around 400 patients and 14,000 people taking refuge, 8000 people have been killed as israeli forces have expanded their ground operation . now, it's unlikely operation. now, it's unlikely any labour mps will be sacked because of disagreement with the party's position on israel . party's position on israel. that's according to the shadow science secretary. peter kyle

says the party's leadership will probably continue engaging with frontbenchers, despite disagreeing with sir keir starmer . disagreeing with sir keir starmer. he's disagreeing with sir keir starmer . he's echoed the un's starmer. he's echoed the un's calls for a humanitarian pause in fighting and for aid to be allowed into gaza. but many senior figures want him to go further and back . a ceasefire . further and back. a ceasefire. matthew perry's family have said they're heartbroken following they're heartbroken following the tragic loss of their son at the tragic loss of their son at the age of 54. forget hypnose this. >> the way to quit smoking is you have to dance naked in a field of heather and then bathe in the sweat of six healthy young men or what my father calls thursday night. >> well, the hollywood actor star of the sitcom friends was found by police at his home in an apparent drowning. he became an apparent drowning. he became a household name as chandler bing, acting alongside his five central co—stars in the iconic 1990 show. in a statement , his 1990 show. in a statement, his family have said matthew brought so much joy to the world, both as an and a friend. you as an actor and a friend. you all meant so much him, they all meant so much to him, they said. appreciate the

said. and we appreciate the tremendous of love. tremendous outpouring of love. matthew perry had been for some time open about his struggles with painkillers and alcohol . with painkillers and alcohol. scotland's refugees minister is asking the uk government for urgent funding to help communities house migrants emma roddick supports the government's plan to cut the use of hotels for asylum seekers and says tackling a backlog in cases should be a priority. but she has warned that shifting the financial burden onto local authorities would be unacceptable and reckless . the unacceptable and reckless. the immigration minister robert jenrick, says the number of hotels used to house migrants will be cut by 50 over the next three months. well, this is gb news. we're live across the uk on tv, on digital radio and on your smart speaker to now it's back to free speech nation .

back to free speech nation. welcome back to this special edition of free speech nation . edition of free speech nation. >> i'm coming live from church house in westminster. the battle of ideas . i'm thrilled to of ideas. i'm thrilled to welcome my next guests from ideas beyond borders, co—director melissa chen and faisal ahmadiyya, who . faisal ahmadiyya, who. hello. well sir, hello. welcome, both. faisal, i want to start with you.ideas faisal, i want to start with you. ideas beyond borders. what's it all about? >> so to major statistics that made me started. >> one is there are more books translated to spanish from two arabic in one to spanish in one year than arabic in 1000 years, and the other one is that when i grew up in iraq, that there were more books that were banned than read. wow. so ideas beyond borders is an organisation that makes accessible in makes knowledge accessible in closed makes knowledge accessible in clo:|si makes knowledge accessible in clo: is that do you makes knowledge accessible in clo:|s that do you do that on >> is that how do you do that on a practical level? >> on a practical level, i mean,

thank internet now thank goodness the internet now exists lot exists and now there are a lot of tools able to of tools that's able to circumvent internet censorship across east. and what across the middle east. and what we is we translate the we do is that we translate the books that the authoritarians don't these are the don't like and these are the books enlightenment books of that enlightenment values to values from steven pinker to john etcetera, john stuart mill, etcetera, and make available to be make them available to be downloaded pdf. we have downloaded as a pdf. we have been able to expand to other forms of media not forms of media because not everybody in the kind of the new generation to read. so we generation likes to read. so we start into like start working into like wikipedia into short start working into like wikipe(into into short start working into like wikipe(into kind into short start working into like wikipe(into kind ofinto short start working into like wikipe(into kind of something videos, into kind of something that gets people engaged in the subject . and what's fascinating, subject. and what's fascinating, i around for i mean, we have been around for six years and now we have 8.2 million subscribers across million subscribers all across the region from iraq, from to morocco . and i think there is a morocco. and i think there is a lot of demand as people have tried the extreme nationalists and they have tried the extreme islamists and they're looking for and are for something else. and we are trying kind of trying to be that kind of alternative. alternative alternative. third, alternative narrative, that kind of to push people towards the enlightenment. the lesser was extremism . extremism. >> want to bring >> so, melissa, i want to bring you because, you know, you in here because, you know, tyrants traditionally have always been in favour of censorship. of

censorship. they're afraid of knowledge. it sounds like knowledge. and it sounds like you've quite optimistic you've got quite an optimistic view more information you've got quite an optimistic vilout more information you've got quite an optimistic vilout the)re information you've got quite an optimistic vilout the betterirmation you've got quite an optimistic vilout the better the tion is out there, the better the world will be. do you think that's right? >> inform ation >> when tyrants ban information in , you kind of can tell in general, you kind of can tell what the sensitivities are, right? so you know, in some right? and so you know, in some ways in places like, say , kuwait ways in places like, say, kuwait or the middle east, certain or in the middle east, certain books more likely to be books are more likely to be banned pertaining to religion than you even have. something like the little mermaid. it's one the more often banned one of the more often banned books for some reason. really? yeah well, because it's about disobedience, right? like she disobeys . i'm from disobeys her father. i'm from singapore, right? and so this is like as far as a country that is as polar opposite as your show, like free speech nation. this is singapore . this is like the most singapore. this is like the most unfree speech nation almost in the world. i think at least close to it. and the books that are banned in singapore are going to be books like, believe it or not, like books about communism . um, books like that. communism. um, books like that. so really ? yeah, but. so really? yeah, but. >> but i suppose what some people would say, well you know, disseminating these kind of

banned books throughout the world, mean, a great world, i mean, that's a great idea, can actually idea, but what can you actually do where the do about the countries where the tyranny is in power? they won't let those things be disseminated. yeah there are two kinds of censorship. >> i think there's up >> i think there's bottom up and there's down. right . there's top down. yeah, right. in states right now, in the united states right now, there's of a battle between there's kind of a battle between kind of issues where you kind of both issues where you have like people about have like people arguing about like amendment like first amendment protection wins. in schools in the wins. but in schools in the united states, you have parents saying wait a minute, we saying like, wait a minute, we don't these books to don't really want these books to be school library. right? be in the school library. right? and that's kind of like and so that's kind of like bottom up, like we to bottom up, like we want to curate what's library. curate what's in the library. they're kind different. but they're kind of different. but bottom censorship, bottom up censorship, they feel the you're there for. the same when you're there for. but the difference is that , you but the difference is that, you know, bottom up censorship , know, in bottom up censorship, the boundaries over time . the boundaries change over time. it's quite capricious. that's really interesting because i think when tyrannical regimes are accused of being pro censorship, they often say, look at you, look clean up your own house. >> you know, this is this is something that we get all the time. mean, facebook. time. i mean, facebook. do you think that think that's right? that although we don't have state censorship the that

censorship in in the way that china censorship, we china has state censorship, we do form censorship, definitely. >> mean, i moved to >> i mean, i mean, i moved to the states 2013, one of my the states in 2013, one of my first conferences was in austin , texas. >> and they're like, oh , like >> and they're like, oh, like you came to america as one of the worst countries in the world. and like, i come world. and i'm like, i come from iraq. studies are pretty low. iraq. my studies are pretty low. >> i'm america is much >> i'm sure america is much better than than iraq. >> and answer is yes. i >> and the answer is yes. i mean, i think, melissa was mean, i think, as melissa was saying, with mean, i think, as melissa was sainestern with mean, i think, as melissa was sainestern world, with mean, i think, as melissa was sainestern world, they with mean, i think, as melissa was sainestern world, they callth mean, i think, as melissa was sainestern world, they call it the western world, they call it cultural censorship, is that people many cases have to people in many cases have to self—censor for the case of respecting people's sensitivities and the general culture. i find to some extent thatis culture. i find to some extent that is a bit more difficult to navigate than the one that is straight censorship. i mean, like countries like when countries like with iran it's like this is banned. iran, it's like this is banned. it's very clear what's banned and banned. and it's very clear what's banned andwest banned. and it's very clear what's banned andwest is banned. and it's very clear what's banned andwest is prettynned. and it's very clear what's banned andwest is pretty fluid and it's very clear what's banned andwest is pretty fluid of and the west is pretty fluid of what's banned and what's what's what's banned and what's not. i personally prefer the not. so i personally prefer the more straight banning . i mean, more straight banning. i mean, if have choose between the if i have to choose between the two what i like two evils and what i do like about like kind of the about like with kind of the clear censorship, like the government iran, we had government of iran, which we had actually a lot of success, is that if we look at the youth

because of the swag that the government everything government is banning everything and most the case, a lot of and most of the case, a lot of hurt towards women like they now they cameras with they have cameras with artificial intelligence that can detect if women are wearing headscarf or not. and then through that they can track where the women lives and then find there's this find her. so now there's this kind combination of super kind of combination of super authoritarianism between china and iran and venezuela and all of , and that of these places, and that that creates , in fact, a lot far more creates, in fact, a lot far more resistance because it's very clear like we can see authoritarianism own authoritarianism with our own eyes and we have seen in the protests in couple of years protests in the couple of years ago with all of these women marching in the streets the marching in the streets by the tens joined tens of thousands, joined by a lot people. think lot of people. so i think sometimes i more hope in sometimes i find more hope in places where they they they want to experience a freedom than those who have a freedom they want over it. >> i think facebook makes a really point there, really interesting point there, melissa, the clear cut melissa, about the clear cut authoritarianism in some countries . but is there a sense countries. but is there a sense of complacency in in western countries because they they because we've almost taken free

speech for granted ? speech for granted? >> yeah. and i think in the united states, what you've seen is the kind of the rise of cancel culture as a response to this. right. right. like in cancel culture at the end of the day, like what people are trying to just prevent people to do is just prevent people from speaking and what your cancel we see over time it cancel for. we see over time it evolves . evolves. >> but they're saying that they're not censoring you. they're free to they're saying you're free to say you want. i mean, say whatever you want. i mean, you'll your and your you'll lose your job and your livelihood. you're not livelihood. but but you're not free. are i mean, free. but you are free. i mean, they that a form of they deny that it is a form of censorship, right? >> right. >> right. >> know you've seen >> and you know what you've seen in is that in the us is, is that like, what, years you could what, ten years ago you could say there are only two sexes and that's fine. but you today that's fine. but you know, today try saying that . try saying that. >> can still say it, >> well, you can still say it, but there consequences. but there are consequences. >> consequences . and >> there are consequences. and that's the capricious that's kind of the capricious nature leads a kind of nature. it leads to a kind of anxiety versus in straight up authoritarian countries . you authoritarian countries. you know, you know, in russia , in know, you know, in russia, in saudi arabia, you just don't criticise the regime. so in some ways, you're kind of an edgy ways, if you're kind of an edgy person, you want to make whatever jokes to make, whatever jokes you want to make, you your job as a stand

you know, in yourjob as a stand up it might feel in up comic, yeah, it might feel in a paradoxically, more free a way, paradoxically, more free to actually be in an authoritarian country . authoritarian country. >> well, at least you know what the are. least you the borders are. at least you know it's very clear. know what? it's very clear. defined now, i defined as a comedian. now, i think they don't think people they they don't know going to know whether they're going to overstep not overstep the boundaries. but not only they can't sort of only that, they can't sort of future proof their jokes about sensibilities change sensibilities that might change further . further down the line. >> right. right. >> right. right. >> and worst part is, is >> and the worst part is, is that that knowledge leads you to self—censor. that explain self—censor. does that explain why more calls for why we're getting more calls for more online censorship? >> we've had in this >> i mean, we've had in this country online safety bill country the online safety bill that's just passed, and that's where government where the government is effectively outsourcing the power censor, to big tech. power to censor, to big tech. >> and in most cases , i mean, >> and in most cases, i mean, i've consulted with big tech on especially when there was a rise of isis and they wanted people from the middle east, etcetera, not as not isis want to recruit me. the way the me. it's the other way is the fact that many of these also companies didn't know what to do. i mean, they really they had their ulterior motive or main motive is to make revenue and they have seen that extremist

content extent generate content to some extent generate revenue. but because it creates content to some extent generate re lotiue. but because it creates content to some extent generate re lot of. but because it creates content to some extent generate re lot of people cause it creates content to some extent generate re lot of people commentingtes content to some extent generate relot of people commenting and a lot of people commenting and stuff that. so they really stuff like that. so they really i mean, if you talk to the tech companies about what is their actual extremism, actual policy about extremism, number they don't know what number one, they don't know what extremism they don't extremism is. and they don't know what to censor. and in some cases, actually want to cases, they actually want to delegate it to third parties in which somebody india which you have somebody in india watching and watching beheading videos. and that's a lot of that's and there's a lot of stories see wired and stories you can see at wired and all these kind of magazines all of these kind of magazines in they outsource in which they really outsource out countries in africa and out the countries in africa and south east asia and south asia to like see all the ugly things on the internet and tell them, like, you with you like, you deal with it. you figure way whether you see figure out a way whether you see what's bad and what's not bad. yes mean, i'm obviously yes so, i mean, i'm obviously more in the favour of trying to give less power to the government and what more because we have seen i mean, what we have seen i mean, even what we're seeing with countries we're seeing now with countries like to a like turkey, they used to have a lot speech. but lot of freedom of speech. but then but surely it then slowly but surely it became, it's about national became, oh, it's about national security, then it's about protecting minorities, and then it's that . and it's about this and that. and then eventually you end up with nothing say. and

nothing to say. yeah, and we're seeing already that seeing already some of that being applied in some countries in in the name of in the west in the name of protecting cohesion, in protecting social cohesion, in the protecting national the name of protecting national security. and these are like the buzzwords to buzzwords because it's hard to argue against national security. right? it's argue against national security. right? it's not like, i want right? it's not like, oh, i want more to blow up. mean, more things to blow up. i mean, nobody nobody's make an nobody nobody's going to make an argument national argument against national security. so the government generally wants to take more power and they they will to power and they they will try to make argument as make as good argument as possible to try to censor as many as possible. and many people as possible. and we're hungary. we're seeing it in hungary. we're in poland, in we're seeing it in in poland, in many out europe. many other places out of europe. >> finally, because we >> finally, melissa, because we don't have much time, i just want ask you about the want to ask you about the american does american perspective. does anyone free anyone really believe in free speech? because it's become a kind people it's a left kind of people say it's a left right people have right issue and people have accused left, accused people on the left, activists of trying the activists of trying to amend the first amendment. that hate first amendment. so that hate speech protected, speech is not protected, for example. course, that example. but of course, that means want to means whatever they want it to mean. a lot people mean. and then a lot of people are on right are accusing people on the right , conservatives taking books off library shelves. cetera. and library shelves. et cetera. and that thing. it just that kind of thing. is it just the whoever's in power the case that whoever's in power is going to want censor is going to want to censor according own according to their own worldview? it's tempting. >> but let's be honest. i mean,

you who does the you know, the who does the library bans effect. i mean, it's like the three asian kids are still going to the libraries, right. versus like when you have like estates entire like dr. seuss estates saying like, oh, we don't want to publish book because we to publish this book because we don't want to offend minorities or there something or i think there was something like one of the like fat phobic in one of the dr. books, right? dr. seuss books, right? >> was notoriously >> like he was notoriously fat phobic . phobic. >> something >> yeah, but something like that. the impact that. yeah you know, the impact of kind censorship of that kind of censorship is, is 50 fold at least. but you're especially seeing that now with palestine, israel , i was told palestine, israel, i was told for a long time that cancel culture was a right wing hoax. right. but all of a sudden now we are starting to hear that. well, actually there is cancel culture and the left now is extremely worried about it. so you're starting see side you're starting to see side switch and very switch. and so it's very difficult to be principled. >> absolutely. so melissa, before you go, can we just find out how can people find out more about ideas beyond borders? >> our website. very >> go to our website. we're very chatty on twitter, so me chatty on twitter, more so me than yeah, just than faisal. but yeah, just

twitter and website. yeah. >> and we have a table here at the conference so you can come and chat with us if you like. >> yes, but so are the people watching at won't be able watching at home won't be able to that. oh i forgot about to do that. oh i forgot about that. melissa chen and faisal ahmad, thank you very much. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. now and >> thank you. thank you. now and after the break, i'm going to be speaking to australian mp moira deeming, who was kicked out of her own party for refusing to label some feminists as . label some feminists as. >> so don't go anywhere .

radio. woo! woo! woo! >> woo ! >> woo! >> woo! >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle al live from the battle of ideas . live from the battle of ideas. my next guest has an extraordinary story to tell. she's come all the way from australia. it's the mp moira deeming . thank you for coming

deeming. thank you for coming. >> now, moira. >> now, moira. >> a lot of people over here won't have heard of what happened to you in australia, but is quite shocking. do you want to start at the beginning? >> i decided to attend a rally that kelly keene was running in my home state of victoria and i was very excited that she was coming and so i attended on the day. >> i helped with a little bit of organisation in and on the day i read out a speech from one of my muslim constituents. >> and then the event ended. we all had champagne all went and had champagne together . was a great night. together. it was a great night. >> of the >> it was actually one of the funnest of my whole life. funnest nights of my whole life. >> i did karaoke for the first time. >> what song did you do? >> what song did you do? >> them. >> all of them. >> all of them. >> the songs and, you know. >> all the songs and, you know. >> all the songs and, you know. >> but then i got called in to, you know , hq with the four party you know, hq with the four party leaders. >> and i was asked a very odd question , you know, do you know

question, you know, do you know any ? any? >> no, not that i'm aware of. and, you know , it was a repeated and, you know, it was a repeated question and then it turned into , you know, why you're advocating for fringe issues if you're advocating for fringe issues, need be an issues, you need to be an independent mp. and i said, with all due respect, i disagree. i was pre—select and elected into this party on those very issues. i think i do need to be an i don't think i do need to be an independent. was that independent. and i was told that i could advocate for these issuesif i could advocate for these issues if did so respectfully. issues if i did so respectfully. and 20 years, no one's and in 20 years, no one's ever been able a single been able to find a single actual quote in context where i have been disrespectful and then, know , i thought they then, you know, i thought they were actually aligning me with the actual because there were some actual that turned up on the steps pretty from the steps pretty far away from us. and but i eventually realised through the course of the conversation that they were accusing a jewish accusing kelly kane and a jewish woman and another liberal party member of being . and the moment member of being. and the moment that i realised that that was what they were talking about was when they said, you know, you went champagne when they said, you know, you went know, champagne when they said, you know, you went know, which npagne when they said, you know, you went know, which was|ne when they said, you know, you went know, which was our with, you know, which was our celebration. and i thought, oh,

you know, you're not actually talking about you're talking about the. you're talking about the. you're talking about the. you're talking about these three women talking about the. you're talkiialong ut these three women talking about the. you're talkiialong with ese three women talking about the. you're talkiialong with me, three women talking about the. you're talkiialong with me, yous women talking about the. you're talkiialong with me, you know, en who, along with me, you know, there's this correlation between there's this correlation between the fact that we advocate for sex based rights. >> unbelievable . karaoke with. >> unbelievable. karaoke with. it's absolutely despicable. >> and champagne and champagne. so insensitive as appalling . so insensitive as appalling. >> so this is utterly bizarre. so i suppose we should clarify your party is the liberal party. >> that's right. >> that's right. >> the centre right party centre right. >> so sort of the equivalent of the conservatives, if you like, on issues . on some issues. >> some people in the party would, you vomit that would, you know, vomit at that word. but yes. yeah. >> okay, fine. the event was >> okay, fine. and the event was let women speak. idea is let women speak. and the idea is it's about women's rights. it's about women and their about hearing women and their stories their concerns about stories and their concerns about single—sex spaces and that kind of event, of thing. and at that event, some had turned up to cause trouble. >> sorry, they were not part of our event. >> they were not part of who turned up on the street about 15, 20m away. >> yes. and activists rather opportunistically took took the opportunity to say they're all

one and the same, which is unbelievable really, because of course , as far as i'm i don't course, as far as i'm i don't know any either, but i know that they're not that in favour of women's rights. >> no. >> no. >> kelly j. keane because i'm afraid to tell you that according to certain people, according to certain people, according people do. according to certain people do. >> that's it. find this >> well, that's it. i find this astonishing. we're to astonishing. we're used to people used people being online are used to the being thrown about all the word being thrown about all over place. this is so over the place. but this is so egregious so ridiculous. egregious and so ridiculous. what know is how is it what i want to know is how is it the case that a major political party can fall for that online rhetoric? you know, apparently it's the fault of wikipedia. >> so i was presented with a dossier because, of course, i asked for evidence to in that meeting. at first i thought, oh, no, how have i missed this? perhaps associated with. perhaps i have associated with. oh, my goodness. oh, my goodness. and i said, well, can i the evidence? and i please see the evidence? and the it's very the answer was no. it's very easy it's online easy to find. it's online in ten minutes. you there's minutes. it's you know, there's no way that that they believed me i wouldn't have known. me that i wouldn't have known. and i shown and eventually when i was shown that dossier, it it was referencing wikipedia, which as a as a high school english

teacher, i found equal measures of hilarious and outrageous. >> but that's one of the activist tactic is to modify wikipedia in according to how they would like the world to be rather than how it actually is. >> like for a long time, my wikipedia page said that i had no four children and five children a fleet children and, you know, a fleet of cars and i don't know, of luxury cars and i don't know, they just all these things they just got all these things wrong, was hilarious. they wrong, which was hilarious. they actually changed. john prosciutto's say prosciutto's web page to say that the equivalent a that he was the equivalent of a associate had associate because he had associated with me. and then kelly j. keane, you know, what he me was guilty by he did to me was i was guilty by association. by association, by association. by association, by association. like 3 or 4 association. it was like 3 or 4 times removed. >> you're of adjacent >> so you're sort of adjacent and proxy adjacent. that's and he's proxy adjacent. that's right. like right. so it's yeah, it's like it's contagion. right. so it's yeah, it's like it's yes, .agion. right. so it's yeah, it's like it's yes, that's right . >> yes, that's right. >> yes, that's right. >> so this is fascinating to me. so then? so you're so what happened then? so you're called say we're called in. they say we're concerned about you associating with perceive with people who we perceive to be that activists have told be or that activists have told us are . what happened to you and us are. what happened to you and your in the party at that point? >> well, at the end of the meeting was i said, look , like meeting was i said, look, like what the end of this meeting?

what is the end of this meeting? i'd like to go home. i'm exhausted. and they said, well, we if you don't we would like if you don't denounce them, you know , you've denounce them, you know, you've shown you be shown us that you can't be rehabilitated that you've shown us that you can't be rehai:challenged that you've shown us that you can't be rehai:challenged thet you've shown us that you can't be rehai:challenged the ideai've shown us that you can't be rehai:challenged the idea that even challenged the idea that you've even challenged the idea of denouncing people, which , by of denouncing people, which, by the way, you know, they had said no the evidence. and no to seeing the evidence. and they we're going to they said, look, we're going to put fonnard a motion to expel you make it easier on you or you can make it easier on us and just quit. and us all and just quit. and i said, oh, no, thank you. and i just left. just got up and left. >> and they expelled you. >> and then they expelled you. >> and then they expelled you. >> they moved a motion >> and then they moved a motion to expel me. it took them two tries first tries to expel me. the first time to a suspension in time i agreed to a suspension in to save the leader. if he to save the leader. if only he would me and the other would exonerate me and the other women from all of these claims. my contention is that he agreed to that because there was one thing that i was never, ever going to agree to, which is not having exonerated having my name exonerated because children. because i have four children. i'm the slur of i'm not having the slur of attached to my name, my family name, and have my children be treated i have now treated the way that i have now been and as far as from been treated. and as far as from my perspective is, you know ,

my perspective is, you know, that was never i, i, i did my part of the deal. i sat on the crossbench and i never got my other half of the deal. and and then they expelled me again when i said that i would like to bnng i said that i would like to bring a lawyer to the bring in a lawyer to redo the meeting to sure that meeting to make sure that everything's written properly and look, i'm, and have it done. so. look, i'm, i'm the position where i i'm now in the position where i have to sue my leader for defamation. >> that's absolutely astonishing. people going astonishing. people are going to be surprised hearing be very surprised hearing that because these because they associate these kind as in smearing kind of tactics as in smearing people are not, as. they people who are not, as. they associate that with the left more often. and we have a party here, a centre right party going along with it. how is it that this sort of ideology has infected the right as well as the left, do you think? well, so there's two things. >> there's an incredible lack of conviction. so i actually sometimes wonder whether the people inside the party actually believe the values that are written in our party's constitution and our party platform. i actually come from the left and have ended up on the left and have ended up on the right because i've been thinking these things through.

and so i found it very surprising be talking surprising when i'd be talking to people and they couldn't articulate own set of articulate our own set of values. were values. and what they were saying i thought, values. and what they were say you i thought, values. and what they were say you belong i thought, values. and what they were say you belong the thought, values. and what they were say you belong the other|ht, no, you belong in the other party thing is party and the other thing is just so i heard all just cowardice. so i heard all the all time. you the time, all the time. you know, i agree with you, i know, i agree with you, moira. i agree you private. agree with you in private. i know about leah thomas. i agree with you. and i'm like, i'm not grateful. neither grateful. all okay. and neither are the and the are all the women and the children and, you know, the lgbt community, when they find out you under bus you threw me under the bus knowing full well one, knowing full well that one, i have nothing to do two, have nothing to do with. two, neither women. and neither did those women. and three, that you knew. and disagreed laws, same disagreed with these laws, same as me and you. me be your as me and you. let me be your human shield. >> that's a major problem, >> yeah, that's a major problem, isn't it? people just not speaking out. mean, what were speaking out. i mean, what were you to speak about the you there to speak about at the event? is it? what was the event? what is it? what was the message you were trying to get across know , trans across the, you know, trans gender inserted into gender ideology inserted into law is extreme and it's anti—democratic and it cannot be our answer to people who have this philosophy of transgenderism or they have gender dysphoria. >> we can have sympathy , we can >> we can have sympathy, we can

make accommodations , but you make accommodations, but you cannot child safeguards . cannot remove child safeguards. you cannot remove sex based rights. the other mistake that they made was that they just didn't get to know me. so i have conviction . you know, the reason conviction. you know, the reason why i'm against these things is not because i'm a bigot. it's because i am a survivor of rape. i am a mother of children, a four children. i have three daughters. i'm a teacher. i know what child safeguarding is. i know how important is . and, know how important it is. and, you came from the you know, and i came from the left to the right. i really value reasonable freedom of speech, reasonable freedom of association, kinds of association, all those kinds of things. that association, all those kinds of things.have that association, all those kinds of things.have been that association, all those kinds of things.have been nice that association, all those kinds of things.have been nice . that association, all those kinds of things.have been nice . you at association, all those kinds of things.have been nice . you know, would have been nice. you know, this cannot be our answer to this cannot be our answer to this issue . it's too extreme. this issue. it's too extreme. that's not fair. that's not balancing rights. >> so what will it take? because to call someone a, i mean, that strikes as outright libellous strikes me as outright libellous . because . has this been tested because it as though activists are it feels as though activists are able to do this with impunity? well i think there's something different my case, which different about my case, which is going a testing of this. >> so this wasn't just some random street random person on the street calling it wasn't some

calling me a. it wasn't some youtuben calling me a. it wasn't some youtuber. it wasn't even a journalist. you know , because, journalist. you know, because, you know, our media companies have endless pockets and it's hard to sue them. this was for leaders of one half of the political power in australia. they did a 15 page dossier. they all signed it with their names. they stamped it with the seal of the liberal party and then they distribute it to the media. so it gave weight and authority it gave a weight and authority to these accusations that had not been even gone through any kind of investigation process. and i am going to challenge and so i am going to challenge it 100. and i'm the only legal avenue i have is defamation. so that's what i'm going to use. >> fantastic . like my redeeming >> fantastic. like my redeeming everyone . and please don't go everyone. and please don't go anywhere, because after the break, we're going to have some more questions from our wonderful live audience. see you in a moment.

news radio.

>> i've just spotted someone that i know, marion calder from for women scotland, so i'm going to try and grab her and see if marion , can i grab you for marion, can i grab you for a quick chat? >> that's so rude of me. just how are you ? i'm very well. how are you? i'm very well. marion. you're from for women scotland. and i just wondered if you wanted to tell the viewers what that is. what are you for? >> oh, we are the largest grassroots campaign group for women's rights in scotland, formerly known as the group that has opinions that are not valid . has opinions that are not valid. >> according to nicola sturgeon , >> according to nicola sturgeon, and not quite clear about what humza's views of ours yet. but we don't think they're probably that not that great considering we don't think you can change sex and you think you assume he thinks that you can. he's not made it clear either way. shall we say so? >> yeah. isn't that interesting that we're not we're assuming that we're not we're assuming that a major politician doesn't necessarily know basic biological facts . biological facts. >> i would imagine, given that

he's a father and he has children , that he does actually children, that he does actually know how the birds and the bees work , but he's not really made work, but he's not really made it clear. >> i'm here with dr. ben jones, the case director of the free speech union. i'm a big supporter of the free speech union. course, if people union. of course, if people don't know what is it? the free speech union actually does. >> we defend ordinary members of the have been the public who have been cancelled, punished, cancelled, censured, punished, kicked university , kicked out of the university, sacked job for sacked by their job for something they've said. sacked by their job for sonand ng they've said. sacked by their job for sonand yet:hey've said. sacked by their job for sonand yet azy've said. sacked by their job for sonand yet a lote said. sacked by their job for sonand yet a lot of aid. sacked by their job for sonand yet a lot of people would >> and yet a lot of people would say, well, cancel culture doesn't exist. >> i they see my >> i wish they could see my email monday email inbox every monday morning. about new morning. we get about 12 new requests every single requests for help every single week, and three years we have week, and in three years we have helped to thousand 250 people in cases where they have been punished for something they've said. so it's an extraordinary number. not happening number. it's not just happening to nigel farage being debunked orjk to nigel farage being debunked or jk rowling to nigel farage being debunked orjk rowling being abused online. a much wider online. it's a much wider problem happening every level problem happening at every level of society. >> don't know >> for people who don't know what lgb alliance stand for? >> in nutshell, for? >> in nutshell , we stand for >> in a nutshell, we stand for freedom of speech, which is why battle of ideas today for the

for the end to medicalising children, which we think is the biggest medical scandal since thalidomide , and also for the thalidomide, and also for the protection of lesbian , gay and protection of lesbian, gay and bisexual rights. >> and of course, a lot of the critics who tried to strangle you at birth, they were saying, well, because it's not an lgbt organisation, then it must be transphobic . transphobic. >> i mean, how do you respond to that so of responding to >> i'm so tired of responding to i'm sure you are, but i will. >> fundamentally, the people who say you are transphobic because you removed the t, do not know their history. everybody like myself who's a lesbian activist for some years, knows that we were a lesbian and gay movement. we then added bisexuals t was never part of it because being lgb means you are a perfectly average member of society who happens to be same sex attracted. we do not share any cult beliefs. we don't want anybody to change their language. we don't want any pharmaceutical intervention to our bodies. we just want equality under the law. very simple. >> one of our greatest comedic

writers, graham linehan, co—creator of father ted and black books and the it crowd, has recently written brilliant has recently written a brilliant memoir tough crowd. i'm memoir called tough crowd. i'm delighted say that graham is delighted to say that graham is with me now. congratulations on the book. it is a fantastic piece of work, and i particularly liked that. the book not only talks about your cancellation the issue that cancellation and the issue that many aware of, many people will be aware of, but also the craft of comedy, which i think a lot of people weren't expecting. but why wouldn't they? >> know , i it's very >> i know, i know. it's very weird. >> i know, i know. it's very wei it's 90% of my life was >> it's like 90% of my life was spent doing that. and this last few strange years have been , you few strange years have been, you know, in terms of the percentage of my life it's taken up, not that much , but but yeah, it's that much, but but yeah, it's how has the book been received? >> are you pleased? >> are you pleased? >> phd very well, yeah. yeah, we've it's, it's selling well it's people seem to like it, it's people seem to like it, it's kind of got the usual . the it's kind of got the usual. the people we knew would give it bad reviews have given it bad reviews. the people we kind of thought might give it a chance

of seem to love it. so yeah it's going good but that's the problem isn't it? >> now that people have become siloed, we have this sort of tribal and also tribal schism. yes. and also there's a lot of politics going on people aren't aware of. on that people aren't aware of. >> but, you >> you know, so it's but, you know , i mean, very happy for know, i mean, i'm very “pm w the book to find know, i mean, i'm very happy for the book to find its own audience and stand up for itself , you know, so and one of the great things about the book is, you know, if people read it, the ones that do read it will realise that you've been standing up for women's rights realise that you've been stangay up for women's rights realise that you've been stangay rights, women's rights realise that you've been stangay rights, andten's rights realise that you've been stangay rights, and you; rights realise that you've been stangay rights, and you haven't and gay rights, and you haven't actually anything or actually said anything evil or controversial or or anything particular. >> i mean, how have you dealt with that? because it must feel just to that you just baffling to find that you can work in an can no longer work in an industry you love because industry that you love because of these very these thoughts that most people share. >> i know it is it's the strangest thing i've ever seen. i often say to some of the women i often say to some of the women i meet in this fight, you know, have you ever seen anything like this? and they say, no , it's this? and they say, no, it's not. it's like unprecedented . not. it's like unprecedented. and yeah, i've never seen , you

and yeah, i've never seen, you know, this combination of silencing tactics and misrepresentation , you know, misrepresentation, you know, just basic smearing of people , just basic smearing of people, i've never seen anything like it. and . i'm still astonished it. and. i'm still astonished that i'm one of the few people in the entertainment world standing up up against it. i thought i would have been joined by hundreds people. thought i would have been joined by that's ds people. thought i would have been joined by that's a people. thought i would have been joined by that's a reallyople. point. >> that's a really good point. the people that you've worked with a lot of them with in the past, a lot of them have just been curiously silent. even been the even when you've been the subject and smears. subject of attacks and smears. yeah just it happen. >> they just watched it happen. and, know, as say , like and, you know, as i say, like saying things like, you know , saying things like, you know, lesbians penis . lesbians don't have a penis. like it shouldn't be controversial . controversial. >> it's not controversial. >> it's not controversial. >> and in fact , it's homophobic >> and in fact, it's homophobic to othennise , guys. yes. so to say othennise, guys. yes. so i still find it extraordinary that i received no support from people. so the question is why? >> and i imagine a lot of it is to do with the fear that the activists instil. yes. because they can be intimidating. >> oh, i mean, you know,

>> oh, yeah. i mean, you know, the we saw what the slightest thing we saw what happened murphy when happened to roisin murphy when she stepped out of line. she said something entirely reasonable about puberty blockers tried blockers and they tried to destroy and you know, the destroy her. and you know, the bbc six music joined in with that with that attempt. yes. so yeah, it's kind of frightening. activists are kind of within every every branch of the entertainment industry and they will do what they can to just make sure you're not heard. >> and roshi murphy, that's particularly egregious, i think, you know, very, very popular musician. but she wrote something on her private facebook page. wasn't some facebook page. this wasn't some sort of public declaration . she sort of public declaration. she was concerns that was raising concerns that actually hilary cass raised in the in the her review of the tavistock that puberty blockers are a concern. so to have a to be to have her own record company stop promoting her album i >> well, i'm not sure. i'm not sure how true that was. oh, really? yes, there was a i believe she said she hasn't seen any any , uh, she hadn't heard any any, uh, she hadn't heard any any, uh, she hadn't heard any anything like that. but i do know, but she did have events

cancelled, didn't . cancelled, didn't. >> yes she did. >> yes she did. >> yeah. well you know, i mean like the person who actually spied on her facebook was a drag queen. it wasn't even a trans person. it's just a basic drag queen. so what you have is, are these kind of like, you know, frustrate performers who who who don't really have a career trying to take down the careers of others? >> well, it's difficult to know what drives people to behave in this way. i suppose this way. but i suppose ultimately what we have deal ultimately what we have to deal with that, the with is the fallout of that, the practical for women with is the fallout of that, the practical people for women with is the fallout of that, the practicalpeople and for women with is the fallout of that, the practicalpeople and children nen with is the fallout of that, the practicalpeople and children in? and gay people and children in particular. yeah. and are you reassured that and more reassured that more and more politicians starting feel reassured that more and more pibit cians starting feel reassured that more and more pibit more starting feel reassured that more and more pibit more comfortable feel reassured that more and more pibit more comfortable about a bit more comfortable about speaking out? you're hearing more voices is coming around to your way thinking . so your way of thinking. so hopefully , i mean, am i being hopefully, i mean, am i being overly optimistic here? >> i don't know if you are. i think yesterday the lgb think yesterday at the lgb alliance , noticed many new alliance, i noticed so many new faces. yeah. and i think and also an interesting thing was that there were only about like 5 or 6 protesters. i saw them. yeah >> yeah. >> yeah. >> it was quite pathetic.

>> it was quite pathetic. >> it was pretty pathetic. but like, thing about about them like, the thing about about them is long can you go on is like, how long can you go on protesting a meeting of gay people? that's it. before you start to wonder , am i on the start to wonder, am i on the right side of things here? well, i saw the protesters. >> there was a film going around for a start. they're protesting against group. against a gay rights group. yeah. screaming scum yeah. and they're screaming scum at who left at julie bindel, who was a left wing feminist lesbian who was campaigned male campaigned against male violence. at point do violence. yeah. at what point do people look at that and think, actually, side actually, i don't want to side with them? >> know. think that the >> i know. and i think that the more the message gets out there, which is, you know , like as we which is, you know, like as we always say, andrew, i never changed. i just remained consistent . and that's the consistent. and that's the problem. you know, they feel the same. >> yeah , very much so. >> yeah, very much so. >> yeah, very much so. >> i'm sure you do. i'm sure you do. >> graham, thanks very much for talking to me, and good luck with the book. >> thank you

>> on mark dolan tonight. we're

live an hour later on sundays from 10:00. and in my take at ten, why the woke left? don't realise that by supporting hamas terror they are turkeys voting for christmas. what would margaret thatcher be advising rishi sunak to do to win the next election ? i'll be asking next election? i'll be asking her former top adviser , nigel her former top adviser, nigel gardiner. plus ann widdecombe, the pundits. tomorrow's papers and more reaction to the shock passing of friends star matthew perry with live from . perry with live from. ten >> welcome back to free speech nation. >> with me , andrew doyle here >> with me, andrew doyle here live at the battle of ideas. this is the part of the show where we're going to get some more audience questions. our first question in this section comes brian. where's brian ? comes from brian. where's brian? hello. >> queen a symbol of >> is the queen a symbol of white ? white supremacy? >> hahaha, that's very interesting. >> now i know that the activists who said that while the queen was alive was a man called henry

andrews, a professor who has now been promoted by, i believe, bbc news round. have you heard this? paul yes. >> so this was this is now newsround talking to children. >> yeah, that's a children's. >> yeah, that's a children's. >> yeah. i mean, when we grew up it was john craven, etcetera, etcetera. fantastic it etcetera. it was a fantastic it was 515. i used really was on a 515. i used to really enjoy it. that's got enjoy it. that's what got me into the news in into politics and the news in the first place, right? it's all very because one very different now because one of philosophical ideas of the key philosophical ideas of the key philosophical ideas of all of white privilege is that all white complicit in white people are complicit in white people are complicit in white supremacy, that white supremacy, and that includes children as well. >> strikes as mental. >> that strikes me as mental. >> that strikes me as mental. >> for a start, i don't think the should contacting the bbc should be contacting children internet given children on the internet given their but . but also their history. but. but also they were they were pushing this idea as fact. it wasn't something that could be debated. it was it was being laid out as a scientific fact of white privilege. and white privilege isn't. i mean, i'd love to come to the coal mining communities in scotland and go and go and point coal miners and point at the coal miners and tell privilege. do point at the coal miners and tell know privilege. do point at the coal miners and tell know what privilege. do point at the coal miners and tell know what p mean?. do the you know what i mean? yeah. the very least there's different layers privilege, layers of white privilege, like my lady was my school. the dinner lady was

also careers adviser . also the careers adviser. >> okay, well, let's get another question now from kat, where is kat? >> hi there . are royalists >> hi there. are royalists really flag waving idiots ? really flag waving idiots? >> that's quite a question . what >> that's quite a question. what do you think kat's talking about there? leo, this is what's his name ? name? >> steve coogan. steve >> steve coogan. steve >> steve coogan. steve >> steve coogan? >> steve coogan? >> yeah, steve coogan, who seems to be transitioning into a sort of left wing version of alan partridge. he said that the royal family or people who support the royal family are do flag waving idiots, right? which seems a bit unfair. i mean, i think some people, some people support the royal family for perfectly well thought out reasons. he said that the royal family are emblematic of a class system that's kept its foot on the throat of working class british people . and i think british people. and i think that's that's a bit of a nonsense. if anything, it's socialist ideology that's keeping that's keeping british working class people down. and also the royal family aren't even that posh, the real posh

people britain look down people in britain look down on the because they're the royal family because they're not rich or they're not not that rich or they're not even that english, to be honest . even that english, to be honest. it's interesting that steve coogan , i mean, if he really coogan, i mean, if he really believes in these socialist values, he could give all his money to the government. he could do. yeah. but for some reason he doesn't . reason he doesn't. >> so, steve, if you're watching , that's leo's recommendation . yeah. >> give you money. >> give you money. >> they wouldn't turn that money down. you can really live down. steve, you can really live your ideals know what you your ideals as you know what you feel like. >> idiot. if he does >> such an idiot. if he does actually all his money actually give all his money away. 90% he will. next away. i'm 90% sure he will. next question is from mirror. mirror. hello hi. >> is rishi sunak right to say that i could wipe out the human race? >> yes. >> yes. >> it's terrifying. >> it's terrifying. >> you know, if you've seen the terminator films, we know where this is leading. i just think. i think we need to destroy skynet. >> we've had this discussion a number of times. we agree totally on this. yeah. yeah, it's horrible. i is completely terrifying . i mean, this is, by terrifying. i mean, this is, by the way, this is coming from a

man who doesn't right man who doesn't have the right size so i'm not going size trousers, so i'm not going to to much that says to listen to much that he says anyway. however, i is anyway. no. however, i is terrifying. i mean, terrifying. yes. i mean, he makes a point. not sure makes a good point. i'm not sure he why. he makes the point he knows why. he makes the point . but point if let . but the point is, if we let this intelligence this artificial intelligence take absolutely everything take over, absolutely everything we what's our position? we do, what's our position? >> i just hate it. i hate the robots. i hate a friend of mine had an egg whisk with many settings i thought that was settings and i thought that was scary. get rid scary. i just think just get rid of him. >> don't think? >> don't you think? >> don't you think? >> no, all. here is >> no, not at all. here is just like doing computer like computers doing computer stuff. and if the last, you know, whatever 20 years has shown us anything, it speeds things instead of writing things up instead of writing things, instead of engraving things, instead of engraving things on a chalk tablet, things in a on a chalk tablet, you've got excel. so it's a boon for society . also, i i'm not for society. also, i i'm not worried about a terminator that can be stopped by having to select squares that contain a traffic light . traffic light. >> but wait a minute. what about forget about the armageddon argument , forget about the armageddon argument, which i think is actually valid. what about this idea of them putting us out of work? i mean, there won't be any

need for anyone if you can get robots to everything. robots to do everything. >> man in the white >> this is the man in the white coat argument. like think coat argument. like you think that the people that like the jobs, the people won't somewhere won't be repurposed somewhere else. the looms were else. like when the looms were invented. well, people who invented. well, the people who used like they're now used to weave like they're now working like pr managers or working as like pr managers or some vital part of the some other vital part of the workforce. >> i think we'll be repurposed. >> i think we'll be repurposed. >> i think we'll be repurposed. >> i think we'll put into >> i think we'll be put into pods some kind of amniotic pods of some kind of amniotic fluid and used as human batteries to, to support our digital overlords. >> well, this is weird. >> well, this is weird. >> this is where the matrix falls down slightly because there are better ways of generate using electricity than putting people in baths of jelly . say there is no way i would have come up with that sentence . have come up with that sentence. >> well , on that note, i would >> well, on that note, i would like to move on to our next section , our final section of section, our final section of the show, which is our unfiltered dilemmas, where we're going to get you, our lovely

audience share your problems audience to share your problems with us. >> and i'm sure we'll be able to help. we've got a dilemma from, um, lisa. where is lisa? >> yeah, i've got a dilemma. i sent a tweet last night where i wondered whether for the people who are supporting palestine line today, whether any of them lived in gentrified areas , lived in gentrified areas, because i'm a sociologist and i know that there is some idea that gentrification and colonialism ization can kind of sort of meet. and i put this tweet out and i got about a thousand responses as most of them were abusive . uh, yes. and them were abusive. uh, yes. and ihave them were abusive. uh, yes. and i have deleted 500 accounts. is that the right thing to do? should i delete those 500 accounts or should i be free speech and let them say what they want to me? >> okay. yeah. i mean, this is what happens when you get dogpiled on twitter. leo you're a bit of an expert on this,

aren't how do block aren't you? how do you block them? do you just them? do you get do you just block the account? >> like to sorry, >> i just like to say sorry, lisa. >> e one of lisa. >> one of those people and >> i was one of those people and yeah, know. i mean, like yeah, i don't know. i mean, like twitter, to twitter, you've got to understand, like real understand, it's not like real life. it's not like somebody saying it to you in the street. none of those people would say it street. they'd it to you in the street. they'd maybe at you from maybe shout it at you from inside car . yeah, if you inside their car. yeah, if you were another it's like were in another car. it's like a road rage. it's a twitter is just a big road simulator. just a big road rage simulator. >> but actually that that i think way to approach think is a good way to approach it the i approach it it because the way i approach it is say, well, someone is i, i say, well, if someone did that on the did say that to me on the street, how would i react? so if someone up to me someone if someone came up to me and said, you're an evil with a stupid head would ijust stupid cube head, would i just say, okay, well, let's discuss that a bit more ? that's really that a bit more? that's really interesting . or would i walk interesting. or would i walk away? and if i would walk away, that's a block. and i think that's a block. and i think that's a block. and i think that's a reasonable approach, i think, to take. what do you think? >> yeah, i do agree. until i started working on gb news 18 months ago and things changed slightly for me, i've nearly always twitter like a

always used twitter as like a nofice always used twitter as like a notice board where i say this is my thought at this in my thought at this moment in time. on day, i it time. on this day, i put it up there and walk away and there and i walk away and sometimes i'll go back and have a little laugh what people a little laugh at what people have or about me or have said to me or about me or sometimes are genuinely sometimes there are genuinely people want to you people who want to talk to you about i'll engaged slightly. >> going to get >> okay, we're going to get another unfiltered dilemma now from michelle another unfiltered dilemma now from hello. michelle >> yes, hello. >> yes, hello. >> very impressed about >> i was very impressed about the plea for standing by convictions. so one my few convictions. so one of my few convictions. so one of my few convictions is to only pay for things with cash because i'm extremely worried about the banks drive to abolish cash and i find myself starving and very thirsty here in church house. please impossible to buy anything with cash. so my dilemma is should i compromise on my convictions and just pay with a debit card or. >> yeah , yeah, no, fair enough. >> yeah, yeah, no, fair enough. leo, what do you make of that one? >> well, i haven't had a look at michelle. i'm surprised that that's his convictions . that's his convictions. >> i thought it was going to be.

>> i thought it was going to be. >> i thought i'd be doing this over the phone, to be honest, with a glass screen. but yeah, i mean, i think i think cash is essential for making sure that the government doesn't know what you're doing . and also because you're doing. and also because some transactions you want to keep private from from the government such as what? leo well see, say you want to buy some, some drugs and then also without, some, some drugs and then also without , without cash, it's very without, without cash, it's very hard to get those drugs up your nose. so that's two ways you need cash very good example. >> do you feel i mean, it sounds a bit conspiratorial to me, paul a bit conspiratorial to me, paul, the idea that that credit cards, a way to a kind cards, it's a way to it's a kind of public surveillance system. >> know you say >> i don't know what you say conspiratorial. the conspiratorial. well, the evidence it? evidence is there, isn't it? i mean, got an anecdote from mean, i've got an anecdote from my went to the my personal life. we went to the isle on holiday this isle of wight on holiday this year works well year because works going well and took my mum and dad with and i took my mum and dad with me. my dad took £400 cash for a week in the isle of wight and he could only spend about three. he could only spend about three. he could only spend about three. he could only spend about £3 of that four. it became a running joke throughout holiday . he

joke throughout the holiday. he could it anywhere. he could not spend it anywhere. he went home with £397 and you you know what? it's not conspiratorial . i know what? it's not conspiratorial. i mean, know what? it's not conspiratorial . i mean, she was conspiratorial. i mean, she was right. keep going, mate. i mean, if you if you martyr yourself, i'll be at your funeral. don't worry it. worry about it. >> but keep going. >> but keep going. >> okay . >> okay. >> okay. >> final question now from sophie. where is sophie? i'm from hungary and i work for a leftist media channel. >> and i'm quite an infamous terf over there . yeah. thank you i >> this is the only place you would get a cheer for that. >> yeah. love it. love it. thanks. >> so i've been trying to get trans activists on my podcast , trans activists on my podcast, and previously on my show . to and previously on my show. to debate me about, you know, they say i'm a and i'm if they come and debate me , i'm associated and debate me, i'm associated with the orban government and the illiberal regime that it is. so they won't come. and recently

i got a taste of my own medicine. i guess, because i got invited to this really vile, far right actual sympathiser show andits right actual sympathiser show and it's my dilemma because i know that i probably will be a useful idiot to that show and channel if i accept the invitation. but i channel if i accept the invitation. but! do channel if i accept the invitation. but i do believe in debate and i do believe i should talk to everyone. so do i accept you're not talking about this show, are you . show, are you. >> well, let's assume not, leo. >> well, let's assume not, leo. >> i mean , my, my view on this >> i mean, my, my view on this is , i mean, i always steer clear is, i mean, i always steer clear of . i find it is, i mean, i always steer clear of. i find it it's a good rule of. i find it it's a good rule of thumb, but then you've got to ask, what is a think? >> i think the bar for being considered a is changed somewhat since the 1930. i think if hitler came back today and saw the state of modern hitler came back today and saw the state of modem or the people who were called, he'd be like, what on earth went wrong? >> yeah. with all these pushing

for free speech and women's rights and gay rights . rights and gay rights. >> he wouldn't recognise them, would he ? would he? >> if they are actual , then if >> if they are actual, then if they're goose stepping in swastikas, if they are the aryan race, then i wouldn't go. because you have to think about the audience that you'll be talking to. there's no point . talking to. there's no point. who are you going to try and convert that if they are actual with the uniform on, then they're not interested in trans debate anyway. they're not interested rights. interested in women's rights. they're interested all interested in women's rights. thethings interested all interested in women's rights. thethings thaterested all interested in women's rights. thethings that people all interested in women's rights. thethings that people that. the things that people that are called terfs are interested in. so there'd be no point. you'd be like, you you'd become this like, you say you'd become this useful idiot where both sides would you and would would pummel you and you would be win at all. be you would not win at all. >> well, that was a nice cheery topic this has been topic to end on. this has been free speech nation with me andrew doyle here at church house westminster for house in westminster for the battle thanks ever so battle of ideas. thanks ever so much wonderful panellists, much to my wonderful panellists, leo and paul cox and to leo kearse and paul cox and to all of the guests that you've seen me again next seen tonight. join me again next week. .

>> very good evening to you. i'm aaron armstrong. headlines now from the gb news room. israel claims to have killed dozens of militants in direct clashes with hamas in northern gaza . the hamas in northern gaza. the israeli military says the hamas fighters were killed leaving a tunnel near the erez crossing, which had linked gaza to israel before the conflict broke out. the idf says it's been massively bombarding gaza from the air to ensure the safety of ground forces and, in their words, eliminate terrorist infrastructure. the gaza health ministry says more than 8000 palestinians have now been killed . its spokesperson, daniel killed. its spokesperson, daniel hagan killed. its spokesperson, daniel hagari , once again urged hagari, once again urged residents to move south for their own safety. >> him over the last two weeks,

we have