0:00

This episode of Navara Live is brought

0:02

to you by listeners like you. Thank

0:04

you. Welcome

0:08

to Navara Live. I'm Michael Walker.

0:10

My usual Friday night co-host Aaron

0:12

Bastani is having a week of

0:15

paternity leave but I have a

0:17

wonderful replacement, Rivka Brown. And

0:19

welcome back to Navara Live. Hi Michael,

0:21

how's it going? Very well,

0:23

a long day today and we have

0:25

a lot to talk about coming up

0:27

tonight. The government are sending in inspectors

0:29

to a London council. It's just a

0:32

sort of boring regular act of bureaucracy

0:34

or is there something more sinister going

0:36

on? Liz Truss is in

0:38

the United States again, this time cozying

0:40

up to Steve Bannon to

0:42

flog her new book. What does that tell us

0:45

about the future of the Conservative party? And

0:47

we'll finish the show with a look at me on

0:50

GB News calling out their owner. What a way

0:52

to end the week. First

0:54

story. The moral panic

0:56

over people protesting against a genocidal

0:59

war is still in full swing.

1:01

The former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has

1:03

warned in the Telegraph that Islamists are

1:06

bullying Britain into submission. And

1:08

the lead, a picture editor, chose an image

1:10

which shows what this is really about, people

1:12

wanting to stop innocent civilians being bombed. The

1:15

article is predictably hyperbolic. Braverman writes

1:17

this. They started with the Jews. There

1:20

were stern words of disapproval from the

1:22

top, but things only got worse. The

1:24

Islamist cranks and left-wing extremists then took

1:27

control of the streets. The police looked

1:29

meekly on and then they came

1:31

for Parliament. On a day when Keir

1:33

Starmer should have shown strength of character, he

1:36

bowed to the mob, abused his position

1:38

and undermined the integrity of Parliament. Conventions

1:40

aside, the speakers legitimacy destroyed

1:43

and democracy denied. Trust was

1:45

shattered by Starmer's grubby backroom

1:47

deal. The mask has slipped in

1:49

hock to the Islamists. He is responsible for

1:51

one of the most shameful days of our

1:53

democracy. The truth is that the Islamists, the

1:56

extremists and the anti-Semites are in charge now.

1:59

They have bullied the Labour party. party. They have bullied

2:01

our institutions and now they have

2:03

bullied our country into submission. Now

2:06

remember what has provoked all of this absolute

2:09

mind-blowing fear-mongering, right? So on Wednesday,

2:11

the SMP put forward a motion

2:13

which was calling for a clear

2:15

ceasefire in Gaza, or clearly

2:17

was calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The

2:19

Labour Party didn't want an up-down vote on

2:22

it, so they tried to override convention and

2:24

have their amendment heard. You

2:26

saw Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of

2:28

Commons, speak to Parliament on Wednesday and

2:30

he said, oh this is an old, you know,

2:33

the convention that says we shouldn't do this is

2:35

old, it's outdated, it's archaic

2:37

and the Labour benches, they all

2:39

cheered. Happy moment. We've sort

2:41

of won our parliamentary battle in terms

2:43

of getting the agenda in a way

2:45

which is helpful to our partisan interests.

2:47

What then happens? The

2:50

Conservatives, the SMP, they kick

2:52

up a stinker, understandably. And

2:55

then suddenly, because

2:59

the smart ploy has somewhat backfired on Lindsay Hoyle,

3:01

he comes up with this new reason. Oh, the

3:03

reason that I said it was archaic is in

3:05

fact, even though I didn't mention this yesterday, this

3:07

is what he's saying to Parliament on the Thursday,

3:09

is in fact because there were such severe threats

3:12

from everyone, or the risk of a

3:14

terrorist attack to our MPs. Now of

3:16

course there was a peaceful pro-Palestine

3:18

protest, or I don't even want to say

3:21

pro-Palestine, pro-ceasefire protest, right? You don't have to

3:23

be pro-Palestine to think

3:25

that bombing civilian kids

3:27

and women and bunching up

3:29

1.5 million people next to a border

3:31

and then bombing them again. You don't

3:33

have to be pro-Palestine to

3:35

think that's wrong. So there's a pro-ceasefire

3:38

demonstration outside Parliament, completely peaceful. That has

3:40

now been sort of castigated,

3:44

smeared as a bunch of

3:47

potential terrorists, all because Lindsay

3:49

Hoyle did the Labour Party

3:51

a favour and then wanted to cover his back. Of

3:54

course, Sovella Brabermann jumps at this

3:56

opportunity. She loves it. In that

3:58

article she was talking about how... know, police

4:00

need to be tougher against these

4:03

pro-Palestine demos. By

4:05

the way, more people were arrested at the

4:08

coronation of Prince Charles, well, King Charles I

4:11

suppose now, than were arrested on the largest

4:13

of the pro-Palestine demos. So the idea that

4:15

these are out of control and making everyone

4:17

terrified to go to central London, I just

4:19

don't buy. Sir Willa

4:23

Brabham isn't the only distinguished

4:25

opponent of extremism piping up

4:27

in Westminster today. John Woodcock

4:29

is also making himself heard. The

4:31

former Labour MP who campaigned against

4:33

Labour and then was rewarded by Boris

4:36

Johnson with a peerage has published

4:38

some new recommendations. He does

4:40

so, of course, as the Tories'

4:42

anti-extremisms are. Now, according to the

4:45

Telegraph, Lord Wernie,

4:47

so that is John Woodcock, will

4:49

use a forthcoming report to urge

4:51

Rishi Sunak to extend buffer zone

4:53

powers, which currently cover schools and

4:55

abortion clinics to constituency surgeries, Parliament

4:57

and council chambers. Lord

4:59

Wernie's review, which was set to be submitted

5:01

shortly after the October 7th attack, but has

5:03

now been updated, will call for the expansion

5:06

of expedited public space protection orders. These

5:08

orders were backed by MPs in 2022 and

5:11

approved by the Lords last year following

5:13

anti-abortion rallies at clinics across the country

5:15

and demonstrations against COVID vaccines outside

5:17

schools. Now, this is, I

5:20

mean, I'm going

5:22

to use this word a few times,

5:24

I think, ridiculous. So you have these

5:26

laws, which were intended to stop

5:28

protests in incredibly sensitive situations. So someone

5:30

is going to get an abortion. I

5:33

think it's absolutely right that you

5:35

say you should have a buffer zone

5:37

around an abortion clinic so you can't

5:39

have religious zealots sort of hassling people

5:41

as they are sort of going through

5:43

probably a very difficult moment.

5:46

I think it's emotionally taxing getting an

5:48

abortion, right? So the idea that people

5:50

should go up to people in that vulnerable situation,

5:52

I think is, yeah, that is somewhere where we

5:54

should sort of legislate to stop that happening. The

5:56

same thing with COVID vaccines and schools. Schools

5:59

is where families are taking a step. kids, right? Small

6:01

children. And if you've got these people who are

6:03

saying, oh, you know, don't get the vaccine, da da da da da

6:05

da da. You know, that is, I think,

6:07

you can see there's a vulnerability there. We're talking about children

6:09

in one case, we're talking about people going to get an

6:12

abortion in the other. Now suddenly, these laws

6:14

are saying, Oh, you know, who else needs this? Parliament.

6:17

Parliament. Now, of

6:20

course, of course, I think we

6:22

absolutely have to take seriously the

6:24

safety of MPs, two MPs in less than

6:26

a decade have been killed by violent extremists,

6:28

one on the far right one, who

6:31

is a radical wisdomist, right? That's

6:33

terrifying. I would actually be in favor of, you

6:35

know, MPs having security, for example. But

6:39

it is just completely

6:41

bizarre that this parliamentary maneuver on

6:44

Wednesday, which was essentially Labour not

6:46

wanting their MPs to have to

6:48

vote, you know, for or against an

6:50

awkward motion that might have made them unpopular

6:52

in their constituencies, is now being

6:55

used as an excuse, we sort of

6:57

jumped to this situation, whereby the mere

6:59

acts of protesting outside Parliament is

7:02

somehow intimidating. You know,

7:04

if you were to think of where is the

7:06

most obvious place in the country to go and

7:08

protest? Parliament, right? Parliament is

7:10

not a school, it's not an abortion clinic,

7:12

it is the center of of sovereignty in

7:14

this country. So if you

7:16

get a protest anywhere, it would be there. And

7:19

now we're suddenly saying that, you know, because

7:22

we don't like these protests, the

7:25

protest should be somewhere else. I mean,

7:27

it's, I think, completely outrageous, completely ridiculous.

7:30

Woodcock is one of free ex-Labor

7:32

MPs who campaigned against their own

7:34

party and then were given plum

7:36

jobs by Tory Prime Ministers. Woodcock

7:39

and Ian Austin went around the country in

7:41

2019 with a billboard saying

7:44

that Jeremy Corbyn was a disgrace to his

7:46

country and telling people to vote Tory after

7:49

the election, both were given peerages by

7:51

Boris Johnson. So the other MP who

7:53

left Labour and got a peerage was

7:55

John Mann. In that case, it

7:57

was Theresa May who gifted him the

7:59

title Lord and she also made

8:01

him a government advisor on anti-Semitism.

8:04

Now Ian Austin, so one of the three,

8:06

was on Sky recently sparring with John McDonnell.

8:08

They were speaking amid the row over Labour's

8:10

now suspended candidate in Rochdale. If

8:13

you really want to show the Labour Party's changed, right,

8:15

I would kick out John McDonnell. I would

8:18

kick out all of those people. I mean,

8:21

I really would because I think that,

8:23

you know, a long history of

8:25

supporting extremism, okay, all of

8:27

that. And, you know,

8:29

I think they've got to do with that as well. I really do. Tom

8:33

MacNulty, do you want to come back? It's

8:37

difficult to deal with the sort of unreality

8:39

of Ian. He's had a long and obsessional

8:42

hatred of Jeremy Corbyn on a whole range

8:44

of issues. I think he's, I

8:46

think he's just, it's produced an instability in him.

8:49

And as a result of this, this is

8:51

the sort of behaviour that we get. He's

8:54

been made a Lord, a full-time

8:56

job for life by Boris

8:58

Johnson for attacking Labour.

9:01

That's why he was going to the Lordship. Glitt

9:03

was from a couple of weeks ago, but we didn't show you it at the

9:05

time. And I thought now was a good

9:07

excuse. Ruth, could these sort

9:09

of free ex-Labor MPs who all

9:11

went to sort of be given

9:14

peerages with the Conservatives and now are just constantly

9:16

coming out with arguments as to why we have

9:18

to sort of limit free expression or the right

9:20

to protest. I mean, what can

9:22

we possibly say about them? It's emblematic

9:24

of what's really

9:26

going on here, which is, you

9:28

know, Suella Braverman says that Britain

9:30

has been taken over by a

9:32

mob. She's entirely right, except that

9:34

mob are not pro-Palestine protesters. They're

9:36

politicians. They're the elected politicians of

9:38

this country. Our government is

9:40

run by a bunch of mobsters, people who,

9:43

as you've just pointed out, get not tashed

9:45

for honours, but in this case, bullying for

9:47

honours, people who do the government's bidding and

9:49

attack the leader of the opposition and then

9:52

get rewarded with lifetime cushy

9:54

jobs. But fundamentally,

9:56

and perhaps more importantly, we've just

9:58

had a week. S someone

10:03

who's had a litany of allegations of

10:05

bullying herself at the end of the

10:07

week when the leader of the opposition

10:10

has effectively bullied the Speaker of the

10:12

House, threatening him with losing his own

10:14

job to

10:17

allow the overriding of our democracy in

10:19

the form of allowing this Labour Amendment.

10:21

And that is in the context of

10:23

all of our politicians in this country

10:25

fundamentally overriding the will of the people.

10:28

71% of people support a ceasefire in

10:32

Gaza. It's one of the most uncontroversial

10:35

issues of our time. And yet our

10:37

elected representatives are riding roughshod over the

10:39

will of the people and not just

10:41

the will of the people, but over

10:44

the highest court in the world. The

10:46

International Court of Justice has ruled

10:48

that states, including the UK, should

10:50

not be materially supporting Israel's commission

10:52

of war crimes. And yet we're

10:54

continuing to do so. You've got

10:56

people like Declassified showing that there

10:58

are currently US and

11:00

UK military equipment and forces on

11:02

the ground in Gaza right now.

11:04

And so when we're talking

11:07

about the mob and this idea of

11:09

a kind of these brown hordes, really

11:11

we should be talking about the mobsters

11:13

in number 10, the mobsters in the

11:16

Palace of Westminster right now. It's

11:18

no surprise that in our

11:20

country we have one of the lowest rates of trust

11:22

in our politicians. Something like 6% of

11:25

people, according to Ed Sosmoury,

11:27

have full trust in our political system.

11:29

And it's no surprise. We're run by

11:31

a group of people who think that

11:33

they can totally ignore not only their

11:35

constituents, but the highest law, not only

11:37

in the land but in the world,

11:39

and get away with it. From

11:42

what I can see, you've cited

11:44

there the actual level of criminality

11:46

at these protests, I think Open Democracy

11:48

did a study that showed that

11:51

it's lower than at Glastonbury. The

11:54

worst thing that I can see is people shouting

11:56

at Angela Rayner over a loud halo, or doing

11:58

kind of pickets. outside MP's

12:01

houses. You know, we have to ask

12:03

ourselves why at this moment in time

12:06

is the question of MP

12:08

safety being taken so seriously. I mean, as

12:10

you've said, we've had the horrific murders of

12:14

Amos and Cox, but

12:16

also since that period and

12:18

throughout that period, continual attacks on

12:20

MPs, particularly MPs of colour. Diane

12:23

Abbott, who received more, you know,

12:25

over half of the abuse that MPs got on

12:27

social media before the 2017 election.

12:29

Absana Begum, you talk about having security.

12:32

Absana Begum does have security. Absana Begum

12:34

had to go home in secret

12:36

from the Labour, the recent Labour Party

12:39

conference after threats on her life were

12:42

made because of her support for the

12:44

PSC. You know, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign,

12:46

a non-violent civil, you know, one of

12:48

the most kind of sort

12:50

of mild mannered

12:52

pro-Palestine campaigns that there is. So

12:54

when we talk about MP safety

12:57

and that safety is exclusively focused on

12:59

expressions of solidarity with Palestine and not

13:02

on the kind of large number of

13:04

MPs that face abuse for all sorts

13:06

of other reasons, including their solidarity with

13:09

Palestine, ironically, we have to ask why

13:11

is this issue being raised now and

13:13

in whose defence. You know, you mentioned

13:15

John Woodcock. Who is John Woodcock? As

13:18

well as being a former Labour MP,

13:20

he's also one of the co-owners of

13:22

the Jewish Chronicle, you know, ironic given that

13:24

he's not Jewish as far as I know.

13:26

But you know, that

13:29

paper, as many people here will know,

13:31

has week after week been going after

13:33

expressions of pro-Palestine solidarity and specifically the

13:35

marches as sort of hate marches. And

13:38

so we have to ask ourselves, is

13:40

this, you know, what John Woodcock genuinely

13:42

believes or is this a continuation of

13:44

a line that's being pushed not just

13:47

by Brevman but by a

13:49

newspaper that he himself owns? I think

13:52

it probably is difficult to say, you know, what's the worst

13:54

MPs have had in this period? We don't really know. I

13:56

mean, I'm sure, you know, I think MPs probably do receive

13:58

death threats all the time, especially on... on social

14:00

media. But what I think is

14:02

really disgraceful is it's not only a

14:04

sort of an unwillingness to demarcate legitimate sort

14:07

of protest from abuse, it's this sort of

14:09

active sort of

14:12

willingness and commitment

14:14

to conflating those two things. It's

14:17

really important in a democracy that we can separate

14:19

what is an expression

14:21

of a political opinion and what is abuse. And there is

14:23

just a proactive attempt to muddy

14:25

that water and for a completely cynical

14:28

sense. I mean, I was saying on

14:31

the Wednesday show that sort of, you know,

14:33

I thought it was a shame that the

14:35

SMP motion didn't get this up-down vote, but

14:37

I sort of struggled somewhat to get very,

14:40

very exercised about parliamentary procedure. And

14:42

I have to say, since then, I have got

14:44

a bit more exercise. And that's because, you know,

14:46

if the Labour Party had said this

14:48

was, or if the Labour Party had said nothing,

14:51

you know, the truth of the matter,

14:53

I think, is the Labour Party faced an awkward vote.

14:55

They did some parliamentary maneuvering,

14:58

which was helpful for them, by the way, because

15:00

instead of the news being whether or not Labour

15:02

voted for a ceasefire, the news was, oh, parliamentary

15:04

procedure has been overridden to some degree. People care

15:06

about a ceasefire. People do not care about parliamentary

15:08

procedure being overridden. So if you're the Labour Party,

15:11

you have avoided a damaging

15:13

story and got a story which

15:15

is, you know, neither damaging nor positive,

15:17

it's just sort of irrelevant story. So they

15:19

would have been pleased with that. Now, if

15:21

they just sort of shut up at that

15:24

point, fine. But instead, what they said is,

15:26

oh, yes, the real reason we did this

15:28

is because of these hordes of extremists who

15:30

are outside. And so

15:32

instead of owning, they're somewhat, you

15:34

know, cynical,

15:36

but I don't think, you know, people disagree,

15:38

but I think it's sort of cynical, but

15:40

I'm not completely outraged by it. They have

15:43

now made it an excuse to launch a

15:45

moral panic against politically active Muslims in this

15:47

country, which I do find a point. I

15:49

am outraged about that, right? It's okay to

15:51

do some sort of parliamentary maneuvering, but to

15:53

do some parliamentary maneuvering, and then say it's

15:55

because of what essentially says

15:57

because of scary Muslims, right? I

16:00

think is unconscionable, especially as it has. I mean, if

16:02

anyone's been on Twitter or watched any of GB news,

16:04

we'll have that coming up later in the show. You

16:06

will see that this has been used as an excuse

16:09

to launch into the most Islamophobic

16:11

tirade from, from all quarters. I

16:13

know this was on the

16:15

show last night that Moyer was hosting. So you

16:17

will be very much aware of that, but I

16:19

do. Yeah. As I say, parliamentary

16:22

procedure, not that fast about a

16:24

political maneuver and then blaming people

16:27

who want to stop a war. Disgraceful,

16:30

frankly. Let's go to

16:32

our next story. The government

16:34

has announced it's sending inspectors into

16:36

a London council over suspicions it

16:38

misspent public money. Um,

16:41

that sounds reasonable, but is that

16:43

all there is to it? Well,

16:45

yesterday, Michael Gove's department for leveling

16:47

up housing and communities launched a

16:49

best value inspection into Tower Hamlets

16:51

council. The council is led

16:53

by this man, look for Raman, who

16:56

was elected under the aspire party, a

16:58

sort of party, which he founded.

17:01

Now in a letter to the

17:03

council's chief executive civil servant, Max

17:05

Saul, set out a long list

17:07

of Gove's concerns, including the

17:10

appointment in June, 2022 of Mr. Alibor

17:12

Choudhury as deputy head of the mayor's office and

17:15

the intention to recruit eight policy advisors, not directly

17:17

employed by the authority to an expanded mayoral office

17:19

overall increase in staff is 27 at a cost

17:21

of 1.4 million

17:24

pounds, creating the risk of a

17:26

dual council sidelining offices of the

17:28

authority in decision making. Now,

17:31

1.4 million pounds does sound like a lot, but it's

17:33

only 0.1% of the council's

17:36

total budget of 1.3 million. So

17:40

it's not a phenomenal amount.

17:42

Um, other concerns raised by the

17:45

government, the council's grant making processes,

17:47

it's decision to in-house Tower Hamlets

17:49

homes and leisure services, which to

17:51

me sounds like probably a good

17:53

idea and the mayor's

17:55

poor attendance at certain committee meetings.

17:58

Um, now, as you'll probably. I'm

18:01

no expert on what counts as best

18:03

practice for a local mayor and

18:05

I'd normally be reluctant to wade into a bureaucratic

18:07

dispute between local and central government but in this

18:10

case it does seem plausible

18:12

that this is all part of a

18:15

somewhat more sinister campaign and

18:17

the Tories have long had

18:19

Rapman in their crosshairs. So,

18:22

Rapman has been a bugbear of both

18:24

Labour and the Tories. They see him

18:26

as a populist politician unwilling to take

18:28

orders from above a potted history in

18:30

2010. Look for Rapman

18:33

was selected to be Labour's candidate for mayor

18:35

by party members but he was kicked out

18:37

and replaced by a candidate favoured by the

18:39

party machine. Rapman stood as an independent and

18:41

he won. So he beat the incumbents who were the

18:43

Labour party. In 2014 he was

18:46

re-elected by popular vote again

18:48

as an independent but he

18:50

was then removed by

18:53

an electoral tribunal which

18:55

banned him re-standing for

18:57

five years. In

18:59

2022 he stood again and

19:02

again he won. So this

19:04

latest investigation by central government might

19:06

be seen as just another attempt

19:08

to subvert local democracy. It seems

19:11

like a kind of obvious analysis or

19:13

assessment of what's going on. Of course

19:15

though maybe this guy does deserve all

19:18

of this scrutiny. It is possible to

19:20

be electorally popular to get elected three

19:22

times against the odds but

19:24

be completely corrupt. So

19:27

we should look seriously at the

19:29

previous charges that were levelled against

19:31

Rapman. The mayor first came to

19:33

national attention in a 2014 panorama

19:35

documentary hosted by John Ware which

19:37

was released in the run-up to

19:40

council elections in Tower Hamlets in

19:42

the documentary where alleged that Rapman

19:44

diverted 3.6 million pounds of

19:46

grants to charities run by Bangladeshis and Somalis

19:48

in return for political support. He also claimed

19:51

the council had paid money to local Bangladeshi

19:53

TV station Channel S and one of its

19:55

reporters in return for politically biased coverage and

19:58

he suggested a council fund. local

20:00

newspaper was also strongly politically biased.

20:02

But the police said there

20:04

was no credible evidence of criminality and

20:07

so they would not investigate. However then

20:09

community secretary Eric Pickles launched his own

20:11

investigation which found the council had given

20:13

money to groups without what they said

20:16

was proper procedures in place for record

20:18

keeping. The council argued this was because

20:20

there were small grassroots organisations who couldn't

20:22

be expected to do the same sort

20:24

of levelist accounting as a big NGOs

20:27

and organisations. This was the key bit

20:29

though because that ruling then set the

20:32

wheels in motion for an election tribunal

20:34

in 2015. Now that tribunal found Rapman

20:38

guilty of corrupt electoral practices

20:40

which got him removed from office

20:42

and that's where he got the

20:45

the five-year ban from standing. Now

20:47

corrupt electoral practices does sound very

20:49

bad right if I hear that someone's committed

20:51

corrupt electoral practices I think that sounds like a

20:53

pretty dodgy motherfucker. But this wasn't

20:55

corruption as we would usually

20:57

think of it. Rapman was

20:59

found guilty of exerting undue

21:02

spiritual influence on the electorate and

21:04

that was by getting the backing of a

21:06

number of imams. Now as the vicar

21:08

Giles Fraser wrote at the time the

21:10

decision was based on legislation introduced in

21:12

the 19th century to keep Catholics out

21:15

of power. Fraser concluded the

21:17

religion being discriminated against may have

21:19

changed but the sentiment hasn't. Now

21:22

adding weight to that idea it turns out

21:24

the tribunal was overseen by a judge who

21:26

later wrote for the spectator in support of

21:28

Donald Trump. Right so this does not inspire

21:30

confidence in me. That ruling and the five-year

21:32

ban that followed of course though would not

21:35

keep Rapman in his place he's back in

21:37

office after being elected for

21:39

the third time. He

21:41

has again come to national attention

21:43

and annoyed a lot of people and this

21:46

time for refusing to take down Palestinian flags

21:48

which have been put up around the

21:50

borough. Rivkara I know you've been

21:53

following this case the government

21:55

are investigating Rapman again and

21:57

what should our audience know?

22:00

Well, I think it's similar to our last

22:02

story about the safety of MPs, which is

22:04

to say that I completely

22:06

agree that it is a sensible

22:08

idea for the government to make

22:10

sure that councils are not misspending

22:13

taxpayers money generally as a

22:15

principle. The question is why

22:18

are they doing this to Raheman in

22:20

particular? And I think you've set out

22:22

quite well some of the reasons here.

22:24

I think the overarching reason is that

22:26

look for Raheman, you know, despite being

22:28

probably not known to most people in

22:30

this country, is one of the most

22:32

powerful Muslims in the UK. He

22:34

presides over a budget

22:37

of over a billion pounds in an

22:39

incredibly densely populated inner

22:41

London borough with a large

22:44

Muslim population, one that has

22:46

made Tower Hamlets a target for the

22:48

far right since forever.

22:50

I mean, it's, you know, an area that's always

22:53

been home to many minorities, hence why the

22:55

Battle of Cable Street happened there between British

22:58

fascists and the local minority

23:01

populations, predominantly Jews. But

23:05

basically what I'm saying is that

23:07

look for Raheman presides over an

23:09

area that is seen as the

23:11

kind of hotbed of Islamification

23:13

in Britain by the far right and

23:15

by people like Michael Gove who are

23:18

far right adjacent and are also concerned

23:20

about the rise of radical Islam in

23:22

Britain. He also happens to be

23:25

someone who isn't

23:27

willing to simply take orders and the Labour

23:29

Party, when he was a member of the

23:31

Labour Party and he was leader of the

23:33

Labour Group in Tower Hamlets back in

23:35

the late 2010s, wouldn't

23:37

simply be a vote bank,

23:39

basically. Wouldn't do what most other ethnic minority

23:41

politicians are expected to do in the Labour

23:43

Party, which is just usher in all the

23:45

votes and kind of mostly keep their

23:48

heads down. He has a bold agenda. He's,

23:50

you know, pretty left wing. He's

23:53

a socialist. He's introduced free school

23:55

meals. He's, you know, restored the

23:57

educational maintenance allowance as when

23:59

he was first met. mayor in 2010-15.

24:01

He built more council homes

24:04

than any other area

24:06

in the country. He's a pretty

24:08

pioneering mayor, given his powers are

24:10

relatively limited. And so as a

24:12

result of

24:16

this, he's been a target not just of

24:19

the Labour Party, who initially wanted him out of the

24:21

party and then saw him as a rival once he'd

24:23

left, but also for the

24:25

right-wing press, who loved to

24:27

pick on a powerful Muslim, and for the far right. And

24:29

this has been a perfect storm,

24:32

basically, for years and years. And the

24:34

closer Rahman gets to power, the more

24:37

intense these attacks get. So you

24:40

have this build-up of

24:42

pressure in the late 2010s, early 2000s,

24:47

early 2010s, when Rahman is leader of the

24:49

Labour group and then mayor, first saying that

24:51

he's an Islamist and then saying that he's

24:53

corrupt. This leads to the John Ware documentary,

24:55

which in turn leads Eric

24:57

Pickles to send in investigators,

24:59

which then kind of

25:02

somewhat has a connection

25:04

to the election tribunal, which removes Rahman

25:06

from office in 2015. Okay,

25:09

so then he's banned from office five years, comes back in

25:11

2022, because he's incredibly

25:14

popular with constituents in the area,

25:16

not because he's unduly spiritually influenced

25:18

them, but because they genuinely think

25:20

he's representative of them. But then

25:22

exactly the same thing is now

25:24

happening. It's a kind of rerun

25:26

of 2014-15. He's got close

25:29

to power again. The right-wing

25:32

press don't like it. The Labour Party

25:34

doesn't like it. They then feed lines

25:36

to the press. It's then

25:38

picked by people like Michael Dove, and

25:41

he sends in investigators. It's exactly the

25:43

same dynamic. What's really interesting, just to

25:46

kind of highlight this point, the

25:48

Telegraph report of the investigation,

25:51

which was published almost immediately after

25:53

it was publicly announced. So like,

25:56

where did that come from? Who was lining that up

25:58

in the background? of quotations

26:00

from a certain Mark Francis, who's

26:02

a Labour councillor in Tower Hamlets.

26:04

Now if you compare the letter

26:07

that the government has written to

26:09

the leader of the chief executive

26:12

of Tower Hamlets with the objections

26:14

and complaints and social media commentary

26:16

that Mark Francis has been posting

26:18

on his Twitter account for months,

26:22

it's a copy and paste job. So

26:24

you have to wonder how much is

26:27

this a kind of convergence of the

26:29

stars sort of aligning the Labour sort

26:31

of disgruntled with Lookford as a kind

26:34

of powerful opponent. The Labour Party has

26:36

never managed to run successfully against Lookford

26:38

except in elections where he isn't standing.

26:41

That's one of his great points

26:43

of pride that the one time where John Biggs,

26:45

I think of the six times he stood against

26:47

the Labour Party's mayoral candidate John Biggs, he was

26:50

a proud mayor in the kind of interregnum,

26:52

let's say. The one time he's won is

26:54

where Lookford was banned from standing. So they

26:56

hate him. They then feed lines to the

26:58

media and to the government who then pick

27:01

up the story because they're looking for an

27:03

opportunity to attack Muslims. It's their kind of

27:05

last hurrah as we build up to the

27:07

general election. So I

27:09

would say it's about mutual back

27:11

scratching at the expense of the

27:14

country's most powerful or one of

27:16

the country's most powerful Muslim politicians.

27:19

Let's go. Liz Truss is a

27:21

bit of a joke in Britain, but

27:23

she's gone over to the United States

27:26

in a bid for a little more

27:28

respect. Truss has appeared at the US

27:30

Conservative Conference CPAC where she spoke to

27:32

former Trump chief strategist, Steve Bannon. Talk

27:35

to us about your time as Prime

27:38

Minister. It was intense. It was brutal.

27:40

Did the deep state turf you out

27:42

with igniting you in the back? Give

27:44

us the inside details. This

27:46

is your audience right here. They love

27:48

Niger Faraj. We love the

27:50

strong Tories. Not too crazy about the

27:53

rhino Tories, right? Talk

27:55

to us about it. I

27:57

wanted to cut taxes. wanted

28:00

to cut the size of the administrative state

28:02

and those people didn't like it. The

28:05

economic establishment in Britain wanted to

28:07

keep things the way they were

28:09

and they did, they got me. But

28:12

I have learnt from that Steve. You did? Hold on,

28:14

hold on, hold on. Was

28:17

it the economists that got you? Was

28:19

it the financial times of London? Are these the people

28:21

we got? This is the party of the city of

28:23

London. Are they the ones that run the deal over

28:25

there? These are the friends of

28:28

the bureaucratic establishment. They are the

28:30

friends of the deep state and

28:33

they work together with bureaucrats of

28:35

which we've got many more in Britain

28:37

than you have here in the United

28:40

States to keep things the

28:42

same. People in Britain aren't

28:44

happy about that. They want change but

28:47

it's being stopped and that's why we need

28:49

a bigger bazooka. Everything

28:51

Liz trusted that you'll have heard before, right? She's

28:53

been a bit of a broken record since she

28:57

lost her position as Prime Minister sooner than a lettuce

29:00

would decompose. But

29:03

I think the interesting thing here is why

29:05

she has chosen to do this sort of

29:07

high profile event with Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon

29:09

doesn't have wide appeal in Britain but

29:13

Liz Truss seems to think that sort of cozying

29:15

up with him is the right thing to do

29:17

to remain relevant. I don't think she's going to

29:19

move to the United States. I think she wants

29:21

to be relevant in the United Kingdom and thinks

29:23

that closing up with Steve Bannon is a good

29:25

way to do that which I think

29:28

tells you what is the conservative party

29:30

base becoming? What kind

29:32

of movement are these guys trying to sort

29:34

of court and meld

29:37

in the UK? There are a lot of people

29:39

at the moment who want to bring Trumpism to

29:41

the UK. It's not because there's this huge groundswell

29:43

of popular support for Trump. I think they kind

29:45

of want to create it in a

29:47

way out of nowhere. I suppose you don't have to have

29:50

that many Trumpists to take over the conservative party which is

29:52

essentially what they want to do. I don't think Liz Truss

29:54

is going to try and be the leader again but maybe

29:56

she would like a top job in

29:58

the shadow cabinet. presumably if the Tories

30:00

lose the next election of whoever does

30:02

take over. GB News were

30:05

also at CPAC and Liz Truss

30:07

appeared on Nigel Farage's show to

30:09

say this. I feel

30:11

that Joe Biden needs to be kicked out

30:13

of the White House. I think

30:15

that is vital for the future

30:17

of the West. And I

30:20

have worked in the Cabinet on

30:22

the both the Trump presidency as

30:24

trade secretary and the Biden secretary

30:26

as for Biden as for the

30:28

fourth secretary. I tell you, I

30:31

felt safer for the West

30:33

when President Trump was in power. There

30:35

you are, a British conservative saying nice

30:37

things about President Trump. And you're right.

30:39

He actually does stand up for genuine

30:41

conservative values and he likes our country.

30:43

And I always think Biden rather loathes

30:45

us. No, Biden

30:48

seems to be very keen to criticise

30:50

the United Kingdom. And that's certainly what

30:52

I found as both foreign secretary and

30:54

prime minister. Yeah. He stands

30:56

up for genuinely conservative values. He's just had to pay

30:58

millions and millions of pounds in

31:01

a legal case for

31:03

sexually assaulting someone. It's

31:06

really weird to see these sort of UK

31:08

politicians tying themselves to

31:10

the Donald Trump movement, which as I say, is

31:12

just not that popular in this country. Liz

31:15

is also, I said, you know,

31:17

she decided to appear with Steve Bannon. She is a

31:19

really big fan of the guy, it seems. Is

31:22

he tough enough to turn England around? I

31:24

think so. Hold it. Would you

31:26

work with? I need a few more friends, though, to

31:28

be frank. I need a few more people to help

31:31

me. So, Steve, if you're

31:33

willing to come over to Britain,

31:35

once you sorted out America, you

31:37

can come over to Britain and sort

31:39

out Britain. I may be banned in Britain. Would

31:41

you think of working with Nigel on

31:43

maybe restructuring the Tory party? I

31:46

will work with whoever it takes

31:48

to make our country successful. I

31:50

will work with whoever. And

31:52

Nigel, and I've done an interview

31:54

with him already today, I would like

31:56

him to become a member of the Conservative

31:58

Party. turn our country around.

32:01

Ruth, I want your views on this. It does seem

32:03

like there are a lot of people in and around

32:06

the Conservative Party who have decided that now is a

32:08

good time to try and do what

32:10

Trump did to the Republicans, to the

32:12

British Conservative Party. Now there might be,

32:15

as they were in the Democratic Party in America, sort of some

32:18

Labour strategist licking their lips. You know, if the

32:20

Tories go into opposition and become the crazy party,

32:23

there are many ways in which that is

32:25

beneficial to Labour, but it

32:27

obviously also comes with some risks. I

32:31

mean, what's your interpretation of what Liz Truss thinks she's doing

32:33

here in the United States? Well, Michael,

32:36

she's trying to break America, having

32:38

already broken the UK economy, I guess. This

32:41

is the thing that UK politicians now seem

32:43

to do. They sort of torch their careers

32:45

in the UK. I mean, it began with

32:47

Nick Clegg, of course, his famous

32:50

voyage over to Silicon Valley after

32:52

he disgraced himself in the coalition.

32:54

But then I think, you know,

32:56

we literally saw just a few

32:58

months ago, Stella Braviman heads

33:01

straight to America after she resigned

33:03

as home secretary. And I suppose

33:05

that they're trying to find their

33:07

people and sort of a readier

33:10

and sort of healthier base for what

33:13

they're trying to popularize, which as we

33:15

know is this kind of popular conservatism

33:17

or pop cons that I think they

33:19

call it. So, you know, I think

33:21

there's something there about going to America

33:24

to demonstrate that, well, look how far

33:26

ahead the US is compared

33:28

to the UK in terms of there

33:30

are loads of people here who support Trumpism and

33:32

look how ready they are to import

33:34

it to the UK. And like, I'm not just a kind

33:37

of right wing fringe lunatic here, I'm just

33:40

kind of one of the many. And

33:43

so I suppose it's sort of trying to

33:45

project the UK forward into a possible future

33:47

and sort of a utopia, what they perceive,

33:49

I suppose, as a sort of right wing

33:52

utopia, which I guess the US is

33:54

by, you know, many

33:56

assessments. I think we should also

33:58

pay quite close attention to the. to the terms

34:01

that Liz Truss is using in

34:03

discreet as they are. She talks about

34:05

a bigger bazooka, and she says that

34:07

she needs more friends. I don't think

34:09

she's talking about friends and weapons.

34:12

She's talking about money. She's

34:14

trying to fundraise. This was essentially her

34:16

pitch, probably not on her own behalf,

34:19

as you say. She's probably not going

34:21

to be a Tory leadership

34:23

candidate any time soon, although you never

34:25

know if there's an actual split within

34:27

the Tory party and the popcons become

34:30

a party of their own, then

34:32

maybe that's a feasible

34:35

scenario. But I think

34:37

what's equally likely is that the

34:39

popcons will do fundraising of their

34:41

own, whether or not that's within

34:44

the remit or bit

34:46

of the electoral commission, I

34:48

suppose to be determined. They're

34:50

trying to fundraise. And we

34:53

know that American right-wing ideologues,

34:55

both Christian right, secular right, are

34:59

lining up to open their

35:01

wallets. I think that there was a

35:03

reporting in 2019 from open democracy

35:08

showing that the American Christian right has

35:10

sunk something like $50 million into

35:14

European electoral

35:16

races across the continent. And

35:18

I wouldn't be surprised if

35:20

they're looking for places

35:22

to funnel cash as the elections

35:24

approach. This is obviously a big

35:27

election year, not just in their

35:29

country, but in ours. And I

35:31

think that Americans understand, and certainly

35:34

the organized right understands incredibly well,

35:36

the power of international

35:39

coordination and joint mobilization. When we

35:42

talk earlier in the show about

35:44

pickets outside abortion clinics, these were

35:46

not so prevalent until recently, but

35:48

the Christian right has organized more

35:51

and more on issues like this.

35:54

And so I wouldn't be surprised if

35:57

Trump has gone there with quite a hard-nosed desire

35:59

to just... of basically raised cash. But

36:01

then, you know, I think it's also true

36:03

to say that on the kind of softer

36:05

side, Truss is there to sort of force

36:08

a realignment of the Conservative Party

36:10

to sort of show that, you

36:13

know, whilst her, you know, whilst

36:15

her premiership may have

36:17

sunk the economy for a

36:19

time and perhaps for some

36:21

time to come, her ideas

36:23

are not discredited and have

36:25

a political home, and

36:27

not just in America, but within the Conservative

36:29

Party. And so I think that's something to

36:31

do with kind of building credibility for what

36:33

should be obviously entirely

36:36

discredited ideology. She

36:38

might be there to sort of try and raise

36:40

some money for political campaigns. She's also there to

36:42

try and flog her new book, 10 years to

36:44

save the West, leading the revolution against globalism, socialism

36:47

and the liberal establishment. And it says, Liz Truss,

36:49

former prime minister of Great Britain, it should say

36:51

in brackets for 44 days. And you've got Boris

36:53

Johnson, Liz Truss is right that the last thing

36:55

any of us needs now is more socialism, more

36:57

taxes and more regulation.

37:00

She was, what was she our prime

37:02

minister for 44 days, she now wants to fail

37:04

upwards and lead the whole West. So

37:06

I mean, China will be licking

37:08

their lips. We are, the

37:11

decline of the West will come much sooner than it otherwise

37:13

would if we let her have anything to do with it.

37:16

Let's go to your

37:18

comments. Literary

37:21

Paracosm. Thank you, Navara, for the wonderful

37:23

coverage with almost 3000 watches, but

37:25

500 likes. Let's remember to leave a like

37:27

and comment to help boost the channel. We love your

37:30

likes. We love your comments. We would also love your

37:33

financial support. This platform,

37:36

this channel is all funded by

37:39

you guys, our viewers. If

37:41

you do want to support us directly, you can

37:43

go to navaramedia.com/support if you already have. Thank you

37:45

so much. If not do consider

37:48

setting up a direct debit or a standing order

37:50

for us as much as you feel you

37:53

can afford. Next story. You

37:55

probably don't recognize this man, but he's one

37:57

of the most powerful men in Britain. British

38:00

media. Paul Marshall is

38:02

a hedge fund manager reportedly worth £630

38:04

million and he

38:07

is the owner of news website Unheard

38:10

and the co-owner of GB

38:12

News. He owns 42% of the station.

38:15

He was also one of its key

38:18

initial investors. He now wants

38:20

to buy the spectator and the telegraph which

38:22

would give him just enormous control over the

38:24

conservative media in this country. But

38:27

Paul Marshall appears to have some

38:29

rather unsaved reviews. I hope

38:31

not hate investigation has found

38:33

some rather shocking content on

38:35

Marshall's private and anonymous Twitter

38:38

account. Among tweets liked by

38:40

Marshall are this. So you

38:42

can see UK has lost its identity.

38:44

These people did not come to assimilate

38:46

into European culture. They came to conquer

38:49

and replace British people. Allah

38:51

wants this. So the Great Replacement

38:53

Theory. They've come here to conquer

38:55

and replace British people. He's

38:58

also liked this one. It is just a matter

39:00

of time before civil war starts in Europe. The

39:03

native European population is losing patience

39:05

with fake refugee invaders. So talking

39:07

about a civil war is very

39:10

violent imagery and that this sort of conjures

39:12

up. And then here if we want European

39:14

civilization to survive we need to not just

39:17

close the borders but start mass expulsions immediately.

39:19

We don't stand a chance unless we start

39:21

that process very soon. So these are all

39:23

the very sort of extreme tweets

39:26

that have been liked by this

39:28

man. And he also retweeted this.

39:31

Very extreme. So this is Carl Benjamin.

39:33

So he sort of said

39:35

basically and then shared this quote, Pascal's wager

39:37

in the 21st century. God may

39:40

or may not be real. But the other

39:42

side is so passionate, so committed to worshipping Satan,

39:44

evil, homosexuality and

39:47

corrupting children that even if God wasn't

39:49

real believing in Him to fend these

39:52

demons off is preferable.

39:54

So it's very scary stuff. These

39:57

are some very extreme views being

39:59

promoted by by one of the most

40:01

powerful media moguls in Britain. And

40:03

by chance, I happen to have been

40:05

booked to appear on GB News the

40:07

day after Paul Marshall's Twitter activity had

40:09

been revealed. I was on

40:11

to talk about Sowela Brabman's fear-mongering article

40:13

about Islamist extremism taking over Britain, but

40:16

I couldn't help but bring up how,

40:18

when it comes to GB News, the

40:20

extremism is often coming from inside the

40:22

house. She's been banging this drum

40:24

for months and months and months and it's why she

40:26

was sacked. Sure, sure. And I think it's a very

40:28

bad drum to be banging, right? I

40:30

have a problem with Islamist extremism.

40:32

I also have a problem with far-right

40:34

extremism, right? And

40:37

90% of suspects on the terror watch list in

40:39

this country are Islamist extremists. So two MPs have

40:41

been killed in the past decade, one by a

40:43

far-right extremist, one by an Islamist extremist. Now, as

40:46

you've sort of recognized there, I think one

40:48

problem with Islamist extremism is it has led

40:50

to more acts of terrorism. My problem with

40:52

far-right extremism is it has way more

40:55

access to power and

40:57

I have to say, GB News, I think,

40:59

is an example of this. So there was

41:01

an exclusive yesterday, actually from Hope Not Hate,

41:03

sort of showing who, what tweets

41:05

your owner had liked and

41:08

retweeted. I think it probably is worth reading them

41:10

out. Half those tweets, half those tweets, the majority

41:12

of normal thinking people in this country agree with.

41:15

Okay, well let's test it. Let's see what we're really

41:17

interested in. Can I say something? Hope Not Hate as

41:19

well, they call themselves an anti-extremist organization. They are some

41:21

of the most extreme far-left agitated and

41:24

campaign- Let's read the tweets. Some tweets, though. Let's

41:26

read the tweets. So these are the ones that your

41:28

co-owner liked. It is just a matter of time before

41:30

civil war starts in Europe. The native European

41:32

population is losing patience with

41:35

fake refugee invaders. Now I'm against

41:37

violent extremism. Warning about a civil

41:39

war. A civil war, 7.5% of

41:41

the British public are Muslims. The

41:44

vast, vast majority of them, taxpayers, decent people.

41:46

And he's talking, or he's liking a tweet

41:48

about a civil war. Well yeah, this is-

41:50

We've got another one here. He's talking, he

41:52

liked a tweet. These are not tweets that he

41:54

has written. I'll just read one more. Okay. If

41:57

we want European civilization to survive, we need to not

41:59

just close the- borders but start mass expulsions

42:01

immediately. We don't stand a chance unless

42:03

we start that process. And

42:06

do you know what that tweet was in

42:08

response to? By the way, so Paul Marshall

42:10

didn't write that. He just re-quitted someone else.

42:13

Right. This one he re-quitted. And do

42:15

you know what that tweet was in response to? Do you

42:17

know? It was in response to a video of some people

42:19

in Africa. It was Ross Kemp interviewing people in Calais who

42:21

didn't understand the concept of rape. He was trying to ask

42:23

them, what happens if you rape a woman? And do you

42:26

think that was an argument for mass expulsions of people who

42:28

are already in this country? Of rapists, yes. Of

42:31

rape. There aren't enough rapists

42:33

to have mass expulsions of rape. That tweet is

42:35

talking about people's ethnic backgrounds. That tweet from a

42:37

figure on the census guy was referring to his

42:39

name. One more tweet. So this is

42:41

one he did re-tweet. Pascal's wager in the

42:43

21st century. God may or

42:45

may not be real, but the other

42:48

side is so passionate, so committed to

42:50

worshipping Satan evil, homosexuality and

42:52

corrupting children that even if God wasn't real, believing

42:54

in him to fend these demons off is preferable.

42:57

Now as a homosexual, I find that somewhat offensive. Well,

43:00

I think if we are talking about extremism in

43:02

this country, yes, there are some extremist radical things

43:28

which are like normal people in this country will agree with. Now,

43:31

normal people in this country don't all think that

43:34

we need to find God so that we can

43:36

defeat Satanist homosexuals,

43:40

which appears to be the implication of

43:42

one of these tweets, which was re-tweeted

43:44

by essentially, he's not directly their boss, he's

43:47

not their line manager, but he owns 42% of the

43:49

channel, so he's going to be very influential in terms

43:51

of what airs. Let's

43:54

see what happened next. Well, who

43:56

you're talking about are not actually here to

43:58

defend themselves. There is a statement which

44:00

we will bring people hope not hate. I'll

44:03

read that statement now. So it's a

44:05

Paul Marshall. He said in January 2024,

44:07

sorry, no, there we go. That's one

44:10

second. It's

44:13

a very divisive ideology, which I mean, he

44:15

seems to be endorsing here and which

44:18

is so often propounded from this. He seems

44:20

to be endorsing it. He seems to

44:22

be endorsing it. He did not

44:24

write those tweets themselves. He does have a

44:26

reply to all this as well. So

44:29

he replies to say that there's lots of stuff on

44:31

Twitter. It's a small proportion of what he's been tweeting.

44:33

Hope not hate actually said it's not that small proportion

44:35

of what he's been tweeting. And I think it's also,

44:37

I mean, you've got to look here. If this was

44:39

isolated, if this was- Is he not entitled to

44:41

an opinion though? This is what we

44:44

exist for, to have a broad range

44:46

of opinion and to not shut people

44:48

down. Well, so I

44:50

mean, so we are having a conversation here about

44:52

extremism, right? And I think one always

44:56

implicit in a conversation about extremism is there is

44:58

some sort of limit. So you're talking about people

45:00

who are talking about radical violent

45:02

Islamism. They should go on the prevent program,

45:05

right? I also think that people who think

45:07

there's gonna be some civil war between a

45:09

small ethnic minority and I mean,

45:11

here it's talking about the native population. That to

45:13

me is violent extremism or something that- Let me

45:15

just read them. I'll come back to that. Now

45:18

that was a really interesting part of this debate, right?

45:20

Because if you find someone who said something very

45:22

objectionable, they say, well, they have the right to express that

45:24

opinion, right? Well, the reason we were having that

45:26

debate in the first place, right? We were debating

45:29

the article by Sowela Bravenman where she's sort of

45:31

complaining about people saying from the river to the

45:33

sea in the streets, right? And they're agreeing with

45:36

it. They think it's disgraceful that from the river

45:38

to the sea was plastered on the houses of

45:40

commons. Cause I said, that's an incredibly anti-Semitic thing

45:42

to say. Now, obviously, as we said over and

45:45

over and over again on this show, that's not

45:47

remotely anti-Semitic. To say what you want is a

45:49

one state solution in Israel, Palestine, where everyone gets

45:51

a vote. You know, it's no longer an ethnostate

45:53

that is not in any way or form anti-Semitic.

45:56

But if you're gonna say, we need to clamp

45:58

down on people saying that in the street. And

46:00

then in the next sentence, you're going to say it's fine for

46:02

an owner of a

46:05

main major media corporation to be sort

46:07

of liking and retweeting and essentially promoting

46:09

the idea that we should start mass

46:11

expulsions immediately, though it's going to be

46:13

a civil war between Muslims and everyone

46:15

else, or that we need to

46:18

find God to defeat the homosexuals. You

46:20

can't say, oh, from the river to the sea, that's beyond

46:22

the power, but these are all perfectly legitimate. Now,

46:25

I know you're gagging to hear the Paul's

46:27

response. So let's look at the rest of the

46:30

debate. So let me just read Paul's statement.

46:32

He said, Paul Marshall's account is private, but is

46:34

nonetheless followed by 5,000 people, including

46:37

many journalists. He posts on a wide variety

46:39

of subjects and those cited represent a small

46:41

and unrepresentative sample of over 5,000 posts. This

46:44

sample does not represent Paul Marshall's views. As most

46:46

ex-twitter users know, it can be a fountain of

46:48

ideas, but some of it is uncertain quality and

46:50

all his posts have now been deleted to avoid

46:53

any further misunderstanding. I suppose the issue of representativeness

46:55

as well. There are 7.5% of Britain are Muslims.

46:59

There is a very, very small minority of those who are

47:01

violent Islamists. How much time is spent

47:03

in papers such as The Telegraph, which by the way

47:05

he wants to buy, on channels such

47:07

as GB News, talking about this apparent threat of

47:10

violent Islamist extremism? There's plenty of time spent

47:12

on other papers telling the opposite

47:14

side of this. No, we're defending

47:16

Islamistic extremism, are there? Somebody

47:19

else will write the opposite in The Guardian.

47:21

Well, I don't think anyone is in The

47:23

Guardian saying violent radicalism is the best thing.

47:26

Write the opposite to what Sovella Brabham is saying. Well,

47:28

the opposite being that we're not adding towards some kind

47:31

of... They're entitled to their opinion. You don't have to

47:33

agree with it. We could discuss it. They're entitled to

47:35

their opinion, but I think what we're talking about here

47:37

is extreme views in society which are somewhat undermining social

47:39

cohesion. Are you saying there's not a great problem in

47:41

this country? I think there is some radicalism

47:44

in this country. 7.7,

47:47

Lee Mookby, David Amis, Mike Freer, the best

47:49

arena bombing. I think the idea... London Bridge

47:51

2019, Westminster 2017, Westminster 2020, The Reading Attack,

47:53

Baitley Grammar, weekly

47:58

Hamas-sympathetic march through London... from

48:00

the river to the sea on Big Ben. So

48:02

there are two issues which need to be separated.

48:05

There are two issues that need to

48:07

be separated. So ISIS style radical terrorism,

48:09

right? Obviously, absolutely appalling. We need to

48:12

make sure the police are clamping down

48:14

properly on that. The other issue

48:16

is that there are a lot of Muslims in

48:18

this country, lots of them very angry about a

48:20

war going on in Gaza, which I think is

48:22

perfectly legitimate, for being smeared as on the same

48:24

spectrum as the kind of people who carried out

48:26

the 7-7 bombing. Now, I

48:28

don't try and say that everyone who

48:30

voted Brexit, everyone who wants to stop

48:32

immigration is of the same

48:34

type of person as the person who killed

48:37

Joe Cox, right? So I think we have

48:39

to be very careful about generalization. Obviously, violent

48:41

extremism is a massive problem, but trying to

48:43

lump a whole ethnic minority in with a

48:45

tiny, tiny minority of violence is pretty, I

48:47

think is very, very dangerous. Okay, Michael,

48:50

we're gonna have to leave it there

48:52

and breathe. Nice

48:54

debate, lively and brief. Then

48:57

lump in from the river to the sea,

48:59

projected onto the House of Parliament with 7-7,

49:03

like a terrorist attack that killed shed loads of people.

49:06

The conflation is just completely bizarre. I do think

49:08

that on the left, there can be a tendency

49:11

to do a similar maneuver, which is to sort

49:13

of say anyone who wants to reduce immigration, anyone,

49:15

blah, blah, blah, blah, they are essentially the same

49:18

as a far-right terrorist. Or, you

49:20

know, it's just a slippery slope. The far-right terrorism is

49:22

sort of just the real face of

49:24

the conservative politician. And I also

49:26

think that that's important to resist.

49:28

It's important to say it's perfectly

49:30

fine to fundamentally disagree, but we

49:32

need to demarcate disagreement from violent

49:34

extremism. And that's something that, you

49:37

know, GB news are intentionally failing to do

49:39

there when it comes to pro-Palestine protesters. And

49:41

I would say that these

49:44

tweets, which have been liked and retweeted

49:46

by the owner of GB news, or

49:48

the co-owner of GB news, I think

49:50

they fall into that category of, you

49:53

know, extremism. And,

49:55

you know, he would argue

49:57

all this. It's not saying we should have a...

50:00

But is it just a matter of time

50:02

before civil war starts in Europe? The native

50:04

European population is losing patience with fake refugee

50:06

invaders. Now this is a tweet

50:09

again, he's liked it, he hasn't written

50:11

it himself. But to me that conjures

50:13

up lots of violent

50:15

imagery. That doesn't seem

50:17

to me a sentiment which is opposed

50:20

to violent extremism. First

50:23

of all, if we're going to talk about

50:25

extremist views, Paul Marshall's quote in his

50:27

statement where he talks about Twitter as a

50:29

fountain of ideas. I mean he must be

50:32

literally the only person who thinks that at

50:34

this point. I mean lock up

50:36

the guy. He clearly also, what's really funny is

50:38

that he's like just obviously a

50:40

boomer, he's locked his account, he thinks

50:42

no one's watching, he's tapping away on

50:44

the iPad and then like boom, you're

50:47

in hope not hate. He clearly didn't

50:50

expect to be overheard let's say,

50:52

liking those tweets which is why

50:54

he rapidly removed

50:57

them from his profile when he was

50:59

caught out. But I think it's useful

51:01

in a way, his boomerish ignorance of

51:03

technology because he's just kind of given

51:06

us an insight into some of the,

51:08

well not that we need one, but

51:10

he's exposed the sort of

51:12

ideological extremism underpinning GB news.

51:15

And I think that

51:17

we should put that to them again and again. And

51:19

I think it's interesting at the end

51:21

there, you have your host saying

51:24

to you, great, good debate, it's always good

51:26

to have you on Michael. And

51:28

they love having you on and they love having

51:30

Aaron on and they love having kind of left

51:32

wingers on and we've talked about this in the

51:34

past, we have our differences about that. It

51:37

is obvious watching that clip and

51:39

looking at the tweets that left

51:41

wingers are invited on so that they

51:43

can say they have a good debate, so that

51:45

they can say that they have a spectrum of

51:47

opinion and so that they can claim to be

51:49

representing common sense, British common sense

51:53

when actually they're obviously

51:56

pushing and increasingly extreme and

51:58

sort of making mainstreaming and increasing

52:00

the extreme opinion. When Ben Leo says,

52:03

you know, this is what right thinking

52:05

people think, or when Paul Marshall likes

52:07

a tweet that says people

52:09

are getting angrier about this,

52:12

these sorts of observations are

52:14

designed to cross the border

52:16

into persuasion. You know, the

52:18

media manufactures consent. Anyone that's

52:20

read there, Noam Chomsky knows

52:22

this, you know, we know

52:24

how it works. Places

52:27

like GB News, places like The Telegraph put

52:30

out what are sensibly observations

52:32

or opinions over and over

52:34

again in a way to make people believe that this

52:37

is the truth. Obviously, we saw this notably with the

52:39

labor antisemitism crisis, where people thought that

52:42

there was something like 100 times

52:44

more antisemitism in the Labour Party than

52:46

there actually was. It represented something like

52:49

0.1% of the membership. But

52:53

because of the kind of blanket

52:55

wall-to-wall media coverage of

52:57

the quote unquote crisis, people

53:00

thought that this was an extremely

53:02

severe threat. Exactly the same

53:04

goes with Islamist extremism, which

53:07

as you say, and as Ben Leo points out, it's

53:10

not non-existent in this country, but nor

53:12

is it actually the fastest growing threat

53:14

to this country. You know, both in

53:16

terms of terrorism, we know that the

53:18

Metropolitan Police reported a few years ago

53:20

that the far right is actually the

53:22

fastest growing terrorist threat. But also, as

53:24

you say, in terms of its access

53:26

to the corridors of power, and I

53:28

think that's where this

53:31

whole kind of

53:33

debate really falls apart about extremism.

53:35

Because when people like Ben Leo

53:37

talk about extremism, they're

53:39

talking about terrorists, active

53:42

terrorism, people acting kind of

53:44

in sort of as individuals

53:46

outside of any kind of

53:48

state structure. But what happens

53:51

when individuals who were

53:53

convicted as terrorists, such as Itamar

53:56

Bangveer, are elected into government, or

53:58

people who hold extremist ideals? ideologies

54:00

like Sowela Bravenman are

54:02

in the halls of power. What

54:04

if they then begin to execute

54:07

from their desks, you know, kind

54:09

of bloodlessly, apparently, these

54:11

kind of enormously devastating

54:14

policies that murder

54:16

tens of thousands of people in Gaza

54:19

or send bombs to abet that

54:21

murder or to Syria to abet their

54:24

bombing of Yemen? What

54:26

happens then? Are those people terrorists? Are

54:30

extremists only people who

54:32

sit outside of the apparatus of the state? And

54:34

I think that really is the question that we

54:36

need to be asking people like

54:38

Ben Leo over and over again. I'd

54:41

definitely take your point with Ben Gewir. I mean,

54:43

is Sowela Bravenman really a terrorist?

54:45

I mean, again, I feel like then we are

54:47

sort of ending up sort of saying

54:50

people we disagree with are extremists who would be

54:52

on the pale. And, you know, I'm not sure

54:54

that's necessarily a healthy thing to be doing. If

54:56

she were elected, what could she do that you

54:58

would think of as sort of heroism?

55:01

We talk about austerity and the kind of the

55:05

invisible violence, the bureaucratic violence of

55:07

austerity, for example, you know, it

55:10

is one thing blowing up a

55:12

stadium or a bridge or, you

55:14

know, going about with a knife

55:16

and stabbing people. What about the over 100,000 people

55:19

who died as

55:21

a result of the austerity policies introduced by

55:23

the coalition government? What about the people who

55:25

were deported to countries that

55:28

they'd never lived in because the home

55:30

office sort of lost their

55:32

landing papers? You know, we have to

55:34

ask ourselves, what is violence? What constitutes

55:36

violence? Is violence simply when I approach someone

55:38

on the street or when I detonate a

55:41

bomb that's strapped to my chest? Or is

55:43

violence when I sign off a policy, you

55:45

know, me myself, I don't have to go

55:47

out and murder anyone. All I have to

55:49

do is sign off a policy that will

55:51

kill thousands of people, maybe

55:53

even millions of people both in my own country or

55:56

in a foreign country. Is

55:58

that murder? Is that violence? This

56:00

is I'm aware we do to scream maybe this is

56:02

also like to speak to why I you know to

56:04

spend more time speaking to to right wing incident that

56:06

that the maybe you do with us I do think.

56:09

You. Know you do need to make a very. Explicit.

56:12

Distinction. Between political violence it's illegal,

56:15

it's outside a democratic process, you are using

56:17

violence which he the opposite claims and then

56:19

someone implementing a policy that you got like

56:21

that might have been a bad consequences like

56:24

they're they're always been betrayed. Us when it

56:26

comes to policymaking see concerts and up some

56:28

good points will often government and say all

56:31

these you eat your policies have had these

56:33

bad consequences for x y z person and

56:35

so therefore you know everything's all the same.

56:37

Policy that might cause the death of someone

56:40

is the same as going into the middle

56:42

of a city. And and and blowing stuff

56:44

up. I actually think that this house of

56:46

merging of these two things and blurring the

56:48

lines and that sometimes the left dozens of

56:50

mistakes were I would agree with you on

56:52

Bank of Via. Is because. That.

56:55

The violence is being done is not

56:57

to people who are part of the

56:59

democratic process or it is being done

57:01

to to another people who are That

57:03

is an act of completely legitimate political

57:05

bias Because being done to to policy

57:07

institute you don't have. The. Vote

57:09

say. By. Set a buyout the

57:12

ib where we disagree as on his

57:14

idea of i don't think we should

57:16

merge everything into into political violence in

57:18

some say policies we disagree with the

57:20

suddenly become terrorists but his. Yeah.

57:22

I think about the sort of slippery slope of my we tend

57:24

to lose the argument bulky be the final word on this. You're.

57:27

Right? It's there's a difference team, the

57:29

Galaxy and like Alice Eve that I

57:31

think that we also need to understand

57:33

what what the actual Us that says

57:36

as as a policies are and the

57:38

fact that you know when you talk

57:40

about people being involved in a democratic

57:42

process in a detail and citizens the

57:44

a subject. With that the of democratic

57:46

process Palestinians nos. This is not a

57:48

binary distinct and this is a sliding

57:51

scale. To what extent off disabled people,

57:53

marginalized people people manifests. People of color

57:55

actually part of Britain's democratic process as.

57:57

many international observers

58:00

including from places like the UN and

58:03

places that I'm sure you'd respect

58:05

Michael, has suggested that we don't

58:07

have an equal society in which

58:09

everyone is equally part of the

58:11

democratic process. We have systems of,

58:13

you know, when Ruth Wilson Gilmore

58:15

defines racism, she describes it as

58:17

a proclivity to premature death. You

58:19

know, this is not just people

58:22

being mean to each other on the street,

58:24

this is people subjecting another people to a

58:26

system that ultimately will kill them sooner

58:30

than people who aren't subject to it. So

58:32

I think, you know, I definitely agree that

58:34

stochastic acts of violence are much more spectacular

58:36

and much more outrageous and disgusting because they're

58:39

visceral and when they're projected into our kind

58:41

of living rooms by the news and we

58:43

see someone, you know, actually

58:46

attacking another person, it's so much

58:48

more kind of dramatic than someone

58:50

being denied benefits and dying two

58:53

weeks later. But really, what's

58:55

the difference at the end of those two

58:57

processes? You've got two dead people.

59:00

I said I'd give you the last word. I

59:02

stand by my commitment. Thank

59:04

you, Rilika, for joining me tonight. Thanks

59:07

so much, Michael. Thanks for giving me the last word.

59:09

We can take it up after the show. Thanks

59:12

to all of you for tuning in.

59:14

Come back on Monday. Have a fantastic

59:16

weekend. You've been watching Novara Media. Good

59:18

night. This

59:21

broadcast is brought to you by Novara

59:23

Media. Go to novaramedia.com slash

59:25

support.