#113 - Dilly Hussain - Tommy Robinson, Islam and Free Speech

Summary

The Peter McCormack Show | Episode #113: Dilly Hussain – Tommy Robinson, Islam, and Free Speech

Date: September 16, 2025
Guest: Dilly Hussain, journalist & broadcaster
Host: Peter McCormack

---

Overview

This episode dives deep into the challenges of public discourse surrounding Islam, free speech, integration in the UK, and the controversies around high-profile figures like Tommy Robinson. Peter McCormack and Dilly Hussain engage in a wide-ranging, frequently candid conversation that oscillates between heated debate and constructive dialogue. Both address the polarization in British society, the implications of platforming divisive figures, and the real roots of unrest – often landing on government and the ruling elite as the common antagonists. The episode also deconstructs media narratives around "Muslim crime," grooming gangs, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the boundaries of free speech.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of Public Discourse and Platforming

• Polarization and Nuance:
  • Dilly laments the loss of nuanced conversations, noting, "It’s become so polarized, Peter, that the extremes makes it difficult to have any nuanced fact based discussion." [00:00]
• Platforming and Red Lines:
  • Peter challenges the idea of "platforming" as selective outrage used only when someone dislikes a guest.
  • Dilly speaks to the deep reluctance among Muslims and pro-Palestinian activists to engage Israeli officials, citing a long tradition of boycott and legitimization concerns [11:50].
  • Both discuss practical and ethical lines in interviewing controversial figures – would/do they have “red lines”? Dilly's: Netanyahu; Peter: "No interviews that aren’t legitimate, just boring ones or interesting ones." [11:10]

2. Tommy Robinson, Community Stereotypes, and Crime Framing

• Controversy of Tommy Robinson’s Claims:
  • Peter clarifies that interviewing controversial figures isn’t an endorsement and expresses frustration at being accused of "platforming" [07:27].
  • Dilly recounts declining a podcast invite from Tommy and instead suggesting a charity boxing match due to Tommy’s comments on Gaza [06:24].
• Stereotyping Muslim Communities & Crime:
  • Both debate the lazy and dangerous habit of attributing community-level crimes to religion only when it comes to Muslims:

    “If there are Muslim drug gangs… they're probably not being faithful to their religion and what they're doing.” – Peter [55:06] “Do you ever categorize crime by faith outside of Muslims?” – Dilly [54:18-60:14]

  • The panel questions statistics, reporting methodologies, and the dangers of using religious labels for secular criminal activities.
  • Peter acknowledges the bias: “It seems to me that with Muslims, when there are perceived issues... we group it under the religion, but when there's other groups, we don't group under the religion.” [54:20]

3. Grooming Gangs, Data, and Difficult Conversations

• Complexity and Cultural Context:
  • Dilly criticizes the "Muslim grooming gangs" framing, pointing out that political and institutional failures are central to these crimes.
  • He insists that if the same number of vulnerable girls were from other communities, the perpetrators would have targeted them similarly.
  • Peter and Dilly agree on harsh punishment for all perpetrators, regardless of background.
  • Dilly: “I believe in the reinstatement of capital punishment. Zero tolerance to anyone who carries these crimes out.” [74:14]
• On Data and Overrepresentation:
  • The lack of comprehensive data is highlighted, with both referencing Home Office figures and Louise Casey's review as inconclusive.
  • Dilly: “When you take data of that crime from those towns and cities, it doesn't come as a surprise that there would be a per capita overrepresentation. But if you were to have conclusive data across the country, the breadth of the country, that would give a more accurate depiction.” [81:03]

4. Israel-Palestine & Religion in Politics

• British Muslims’ Perspective on Israel:
  • Dilly: “There's a strong tradition of boycotting... by not giving Israel or Zionists the legitimacy of their claims to Palestine. That tradition runs very deep.” [11:50]
  • Peter calls for peace, not picking sides, and mourns the ongoing cycle of violence: “I don't want to pick a side. I just want people to stop fucking killing each other.” [17:33]
• Possible Solutions:
  • Dilly hopes for the restitution of land or a meaningful long-term ceasefire (Hudna), but is pessimistic about the two-state solution.
  • Both compare Israel-Palestine with the end of Apartheid and Northern Ireland [25:46].
• Religious Congruence and Differences:
  • Dilly: “Islamic civilization was completely different in the sense that it didn’t have a kind of tension between religious authority and free thinking.” [44:47]
  • Peter probes how much national law should accommodate religious frameworks like Sharia.

5. Integration, Multiculturalism, and Economic Realities

• Bedford as a Case Study:
  • Both agree that Bedford is a successful example of multicultural integration:

    “Bedford is one of the very few places where you can point out and say multiculturalism has worked.” – Dilly [51:46]

  • Economic and social issues are often blamed on “immigrants” or “Muslims,” but Peter notes these problems exist universally, regardless of demographic change.
• Immigration, Economy, and British Policy:
  • Dilly and Peter connect waves of migration to UK foreign policy and global interventions, not simply pull factors in Britain [97:02].
  • Dilly: “I think the root cause with regards to immigration is if we have a more non interventionist foreign policy.” [97:03]

6. Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Limits

• Principles vs. Law:
  • Peter is an advocate for robust free speech, aligning more with the American tradition and warning of state overreach and the chilling effect of vague laws [126:40].
  • Dilly distinguishes between principle and law, advocating for “good speech” and respect, but acknowledges law should step in when mockery or criticism threatens public order or sparks unrest – though he admits it has to be “case by case” [129:03, 151:08].
• Mockery and Satire:
  • Dilly: “All sacred things should be protected just for the sake of public order. Criticize, but don’t cause upheaval and riots.” [124:27]
  • Peter: “Society should punish hate, not the state. I fear the state weaponizing the laws against a second order.” [126:40-127:09]
  • Dilly apologizes for past tweets and says, “Sometimes you can get it wrong.” [135:58]
• Police and Speech:
  • Dilly recounts being visited by police over non-crime hate speech and questions how the law should be applied [129:57].
• Conclusion on Free Speech:
  • Dilly: “I have never claimed to be a free speech absolutist. I am someone who believes in good speech.” [147:08]

7. Who’s to Blame? Consensus on the Ruling Elite

• Both repeatedly come back to the view that government, ruling elites, policy-makers, and corporate interests are the real root of societal discord—not minority communities, immigrants, or religious groups:

  “It is the ruling elite, it’s the establishment, it’s the decision makers, it’s the string pullers, it’s those who profit so handsomely from wars, from the type of immigration that we’re seeing, from death, from destruction, from destabilization. It is those who are making those decisions that require the accountability that is truly required to bring societal change.” — Dilly Hussain [00:00, repeated at 159:21]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the shift in Tommys focus:
  “You hear me talk about Islam a lot less. You're hearing me talk about the government, I was like, huh? Now you know, the real problem.” – Peter [157:38]
• On religious crime labeling:
  “Within the Muslim community, I'm assuming there are people from all different countries and background. So it's ... perhaps a lazy way people have grouped people together.” – Peter [54:31]
• On grooming gangs:
  “These guys were not representatives of the faith ... what they did was entirely un-Islamic.” – Dilly [75:32]
• On state power and censorship:
  “I fear the state more than anyone, and I fear the state weaponizing the laws it creates...” – Peter [127:09]
• On Bedford:
  “What we have now is a very well integrated town ... Bedford is probably not an example where multiculturalism has failed.” – Peter [52:01]
• On who is to blame:
  “Is blaming migrants and Muslims really the thing to do? ... The biggest problem in this country is the machinery of the state and the way they have destroyed the money.” – Peter [154:40-156:35]
• On concluding the debate:
  “I think you and I probably agree on significantly more than we disagree on. But the reason I didn't give Tommy a hard interview ... I wanted to see a different side to him.” – Peter [156:54]
• Dilly’s closing plea:
  “Look beyond what's staring at you ... it is those who profit so handsomely from wars, from the type of immigration that we're seeing, from death, from destruction, from destabilization. It is those who are making those decisions ... that require the accountability that is truly required to bring societal change.” [159:21]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• Platforming, Media, and Political Aspirations: [00:00]–[08:41]
• Tommy Robinson, Invitations, and Red Lines: [06:01]–[13:36]
• Israel-Palestine, Genocide Debates, and Potential Solutions: [16:39]–[31:30]
• Integration, Multiculturalism, and BMW as a Microcosm: [51:46]–[54:20]
• Crime Labels, Grooming Gangs, and Data Quality: [54:18]–[85:30]
• Free Speech, Satire, State Censorship: [120:23]–[151:08]
• On Racism, Multicultural Tensions, and the Ruling Elite: [153:31]–[159:21]
• Closing Reflections and Future Dialogue: [159:21]–[165:48]

---

Tone & Atmosphere

• The show balances openness with challenge: Peter plays the “curious layman,” often pressing Dilly on contradictions and gray areas while welcoming candor and correction. Dilly bridges assertiveness and humility, sometimes advocating firmly for his views but apologizing for past missteps and urging reform and respect.

---

Takeaways

• The episode models—despite real tension—how to have complex, combustible public discussions with grace, mutual respect, and fact-driven analysis.
• Both men see Britain’s core social stresses as being manipulated by and ultimately rooted in state policy rather than cultural incompatibility or religious difference.
• The interview shines a light on the importance, and difficulty, of drawing the line between necessary societal speech and incitement, especially in highly charged contexts.
• There is broad agreement: “speak well, criticize, but don’t criminalize speech for political expediency.”
• Calls for further dialogue—including a potential three-way with Tommy Robinson—end the episode on a note of hope for more honest, respectful, and solution-oriented debate.

---

For listeners: this summary is not a substitute for the subtlety and lived emotion of the conversation. The full episode is recommended for a deeper appreciation of the context and candor offered.

Transcript

[Dilly Hussain]

Look beyond what's staring at you and what's been placed in your face. Policy making and decision makers are not in migrant communities and they're not specific or limited to one faith group. I'm asking people of all different political leanings. Since the discussion and discourse around everything from the state of Britain to integration to the war in Gaza, Ukraine, it's become so polarized, Peter, that the extremes makes it difficult to have any nuanced fact based discussion. Tommy it's crazy that I'm finding myself actually agreeing with him on this specific matter. It is the ruling elite, it's the establishment, it's the decision makers, it's the string pullers, it's those who profit so handsomely from wars, from the type of immigration that we're seeing, from death, from destruction, from destabilization. It is those who are making those decisions that require the accountability that is truly required to bring societal change.

[Peter McCormack]

This episode is brought to you by our lead sponsor and massive legends. Iron, the largest Nasdaq listed Bitcoin miner using 100% renewable energy. Now, they're not just powering the bitcoin network, they're also providing cutting edge computer resources for AI or all backed by renewable energy. Now, my boy Danny and I have been working with their founders, Dan and Will for quite some time now and we've always been super impressed with their values, especially their commitment to local communities and sustainable computing power. So if you're interested in mining bitcoin or harnessing AI compute power, Iron is setting the standard. And so you can find out [e-mail], which is iren.com that is iron.com, right? Dilly, did you ever watch that episode of Rogan where they tried to fact check Alex Jones live?

[Dilly Hussain]

It was a nightmare.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, it was a nightmare. It doesn't work. You can't.

[Dilly Hussain]

Life fact checking is a problem because depending on how engaged the speaker is and how many facts or misinformation he's dropping, you simply can't catch up with it.

[Peter McCormack]

No. And it, it changes the, it changes the, the, the type of conversation you're having because, like, I expect this to be one of the better ones. I do one of the most more interesting ones because one, you, you do a show as well, so you, you know what it's like. And it's going to be, it's kind of that weird crossover between chat show and journalism. There's a, it's like a gray area now, isn't it?

[Dilly Hussain]

And it's Bedford.

[Peter McCormack]

It's Bedford. It's more than Bedford, but we're going.

[Dilly Hussain]

To begin with Bedford. And it's a time which is very dear to both of us.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but that live fact checking I think is difficult. And so the way I think about these conversations, these interviews, is that you have somebody there, you bring somebody on, you let them chat openly. People can learn a bit about their personality, a bit about what they're saying, and then the Internet does its work, fact checking and discussing it, and then you go to the next place which is like, for example, following Tommy's. You and me chatting this.

[Dilly Hussain]

Sure.

[Peter McCormack]

This conversation doesn't happen today without me doing the Tommy show. Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

I did reach out to you about seven to eight months ago. We nearly made it happen.

[Peter McCormack]

We nearly did.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, we nearly happened. But you had half term. I think you were busy and. But yeah, I think the Tommy thing initiated this.

[Peter McCormack]

But that was. You wanted. You wanted me to go on your show?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yes, I wanted you to come and tell the Bob Brothers podcast.

[Peter McCormack]

I probably just didn't want to come because I don't like doing. Like I said, I don't like being a guest.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you have any political aspirations?

[Peter McCormack]

No, none at all.

[Dilly Hussain]

So you're not a public speaker? You don't fancy us?

[Peter McCormack]

No. This, this is one of the funny things in Bedford that's been happening is I think there's so much fear now in the country in certain wings of politics. If you're quite extreme politically, and I don't mean extreme extreme, just like if you're very conservative or you're very left wing, you really fear the other side. And look, I am a conservative at heart and I'm very critical of the left. I think the left do a lot of wonky things and have a lot of wonky opinions and I can be straight talking to them. But with what I'm doing in Bedford, I think. Well, I think there's this big fear within some of the more left leaning people that I'm gonna. I'm basically. This is my platform to come mayor or to become an mp. And. And it will be with reform. That's the fear. And I mean, I've said it how many times. I have to say I've got no interest in doing it.

[Dilly Hussain]

You might have a change of heart.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, look, and again, what I said before, the only if I thought the mayor. If I thought the mayor job could be done, then I would consider having. Yeah. Run at meb. I would do it as independent, which you probably wouldn't win. But I think it's an impossible Job. There's going to be. I mean, you're watching the battle now between the Lib Dems, the Conservatives. Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's crazy.

[Peter McCormack]

At each other about every issue. And, you know, Tom Wootton is our Conservative mayor. We've got. I can't remember the Lib Dem guy's name. I forget. No, the new guy is running for it. He was so funny. We came out of our house the other day and he was literally outside our house with a big campaign thing. Find out his name, Con.

[Dilly Hussain]

If he.

[Peter McCormack]

If he wins, I would support him.

[Connor]

Like I support Henry Van.

[Peter McCormack]

Henry Van. That's it. But I just don't think he realizes how hard the job is. There's so many statutory demands from central government. Government. There's no money to do anything apart from the statutory items. So, no, I've got. Look, I've got no ambition to anyone watching Terry. I don't want to become MP for Bedford. I don't want to become mayor. I like. I think it's better to do this right.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, I think it's definitely more comfortable, definitely in our zone. But these things can lead to other milestones in our life.

[Peter McCormack]

You're being. You're being the interviewer because I'm doing all the talking.

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, I did initially invite you, so we can make it a bit of both.

[Peter McCormack]

We can do it.

[Dilly Hussain]

We could do a bit of both.

[Peter McCormack]

Let's. Let's. Let's keep it together. Okay, so look, we are here now because I did the interview with Tommy.

[Dilly Hussain]

Robertson, not because you did the interview.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, on the back of that, because.

[Dilly Hussain]

He said something on the podcast.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, so what? We'll get into that. But. But also, and I'm sure you've had this, some people are very upset that I even just did the interview.

[Dilly Hussain]

Can we make it clear that I was not one of them?

[Peter McCormack]

Hey, listen, he offered, didn't he? Offered to go on. Offer you on his show. Yes. You offered a boxing match instead.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. So Tommy invited me onto his podcast back in October, and he did so publicly. And I said, look, Tommy, it's gone beyond that now. You're celebrating kids being bombed in Gaza. You know, there's. We need to have some red lines. I have no problem engaging with either spectrum of politics. Far left, far right, Taliban, the current president of Syria, you name it. But there has to be some red lines. And for me, dehumanizing children at a time of famine and genocide is something which was a red line for me. So I said to Tommy, what would be better? And he actually might Even decrease tensions. If you have a charity boxing match, you have to do a drug test and all policies will go to better food Bank.

[Peter McCormack]

We'd both have to do a drug test, of course. Of course. I think. I think actually hearing you two have a conversation would be quite interesting.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'm sure it would. So long as he could have some decorum about himself, which I hope you could. He seems to do it with others. If you can maintain that decorum, I'm sure we can have a conversation.

[Peter McCormack]

But. Yeah, so. But some people, like, fundamentally disagree with the idea of the interview happening. They use the term platforming, which, by the way, I don't know what you think of it. I hate that term because it's only a term used when it's somebody they dislike. They say you're platforming them. I think he's a legitimate interview. Do you.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you have any red lines with regards to who you would interview?

[Peter McCormack]

It would be more. You'd have to ask me.

[Dilly Hussain]

The person, the leader of Al Qaeda.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know who that is right now, but sure, why not?

[Dilly Hussain]

A Taliban official.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure, why not? I mean, I've got questions about the Taliban. Because I do not understand. I mean, I'm gonna say to you now, I'm not a hugely religious guy. You probably haven't seen me tweet. I don't know if I've tweeted much about Islam.

[Dilly Hussain]

No.

[Peter McCormack]

But I don't tend to have known.

[Dilly Hussain]

About Palestine and Gaza.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, I have. You know, I believe in a free Palestine, which is. This is where it traps, like a few of the conservatives, because they're like, hold on, you're not meant to be saying that. That's what the left say. And I'm like, yeah, but I do believe that these people should be free. And I have called it a genocide. I.

[Dilly Hussain]

Quite early on.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but even. But even that, like, my big point on that, by the way, was like, whether it's a genocide or not, as defined by. Who gets to define what genocide is, the fact that we're discussing it. Sure. Something pretty terrible is happening there, but I don't. I don't know a lot about religion. I'm, you know, I am a Christian because of my parents, but I don't go to church. I don't know a lot about Islam. I'm a lot of today. Will you be probably teaching me?

[Dilly Hussain]

I'll try my best, but. Your grandparents religious?

[Peter McCormack]

Not that I remember. My mum was. My mum was. She's a devout Catholic. I was made to be an altar Boy. Which I didn't enjoy at all. I'm feeling a drawback to Christianity, but more as to having my own kind of, like, moral framework. Less so than I believe in a God, but I'm not hugely religious. And so I expect today a lot of it will be you teaching me things about Islam or me asking questions. I'll try.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'll try my best.

[Peter McCormack]

But. But, yeah, where are we starting the Tommy issue?

[Dilly Hussain]

So I think.

[Peter McCormack]

Hold on. You said but. Sorry, let's go back to red lines. Yeah, so.

[Dilly Hussain]

Red lines.

[Peter McCormack]

Yes. So. So. So people have said, would you, for example, would you interview Tate? Because you've interviewed Tommy Robinson. And. And I. I wouldn't. And. And why? So I don't find him actually that interesting. He. Yeah, I just don't find him that interesting for me in what he has to say. I don't think he has much to the. I think there's other people saying similar things in a much more articulate and positive way, and I think that's. There's more interesting people to talk about. So there's people I wouldn't interview because I don't think they're that interesting or they're just not for me. But I don't know how you draw. Draw a red line.

[Dilly Hussain]

I.

[Peter McCormack]

You know, because, I mean, what's the worst person you. You can kind of think of? I don't know. Give me an Lucy Letby. At the moment, she's in jail for the murder of, you know, a number of babies.

[Dilly Hussain]

So for me, it would be Netanyahu, like.

[Peter McCormack]

But I've still interviewed him. Okay. I mean, I. I think he's corrupt and criminal. I think. I think the way the Israeli army has operated is a disgrace. And then for anyone listening, I'm also very critical of people on the Palestinian side. I think con, you should find that tweet I put out right after. Not long after October 7th, where I was. Because the whole thing confuses me because I hate this pick aside when there's reasons for both empathy and criticism on both sides. You know, there's not. There's no singular view of history with this. Right. But I was still interviewing Netanyahu. I'd probably reach out to you, Danny, and say, look, give me some questions. What. What do you think I should be asking him? But I don't think there's no legitimate interviews. I just think there are boring interviews and interesting interviews, but there's no, Sorry, no interviews that aren't legitimate. Why is he a red line for you?

[Dilly Hussain]

So I think the vast Majority of Muslims, whether in the Muslim majority world or in the west, have a very strong position towards Israel and Zionism, one that's grounded on perceiving that ideology and the current conflict there as fundamentally unjust, illegitimate, from an occupational point of view, and now a genocide. And there's a strong tradition of boycotting and boycotting, kind of. It personifies how Muslims and obviously others who support the Palestinian cause is by not giving Israel or Zionists the legitimacy of their claims to Palestine. And I think that tradition runs very deep. So someone like Netanyahu has overseen, in a conservative estimate, 62 and a half thousand people killed, the vast majority being women and children, 90% of Gaza decimated. I think the kind of horrific 4K scenes that we've seen, the dystopian levels of violence that we've seen meted out against the civilian population, makes it very difficult, I would say, for most Muslim and principal pro Palestine hosts to entertain such guests simply because what are we going to talk about? You're going to basically say that Israel has a right to defend itself. It all started in October 7th. From the river to the Sea is a genocidal chant. And the host, if they're Muslim or pro Palestine, is just going to unequivocally reject that these conversations have been had.

[Peter McCormack]

There's nothing new to be learned.

[Dilly Hussain]

There's nothing new to be learned.

[Peter McCormack]

But that doesn't sound like a red line. That almost sounds like it's just pointless.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, the red line would be grounded on engaging Israelis and Zionists who are responsible for policies that are obviously having a huge adverse effect in terms of bloodshed and death and destruction. I think a line has to be drawn. Something like when Tucker Carlson went and interviewed Putin. In fact, whenever he interviews anyone of late, there's always a huge uproar from some constituency of MAGA and the right blood look, he's engaging with our enemies and so forth. I think when it comes to Israel particularly and how it's perceived in the wider Muslim, Arab, Muslim world and even in the global south, it's just seen as when you engage Israel or Israeli diplomats or Israeli officials, ultimately by engaging, this is the thinking, and I'm specifically talking about Israeli and Zionism. This is not. I'm yet to experience this type of thinking being applied to others. It's that you're going to give legitimacy for pushing propaganda about why Israel has a right to exist in that particular land and the historical political context in which resulted in mass Jewish migration to a land which was ultimately foreign to them. These were European Jews that arrived there post World War II. And to have those conversations, for them it would be anti Semitic at its core and for us it would be just discussing history as it is. So, yeah, I think red lines and the red lines for this very reason that they have to be very, very kind of like defined. It can't be applied to most guests or else you won't have a show. But yeah, I think sometimes we would draw a line whether you think that the guest is boring or they've got nothing to offer, in the case of yourself and Tate, or whether it's just simply not giving a platform to further legitimize the talking points of something which you at core believe is incorrect and unjust.

[Peter McCormack]

For those of you out there who want to protect your Bitcoin, I want to tell you about casa, the leading bitcoin security solution and a solution that I use for my Bitcoin and my football club's Bitcoin treasury. Now, if you're serious about protecting your bitcoin, you will need a rock solid security plan. And CASA gives you just that. With their multi signature security and key management services, CASA makes it easier than ever to take control of your Bitcoin without ever having the risk of a single point of failure. Now, they offer multiple levels of protection, all designed with simplicity and ease of use in mind. And, and that works even if you're not a tech expert. So don't leave your bitcoin security to chance. Go to Casa I.O. and check out the services that I am using today to protect my Bitcoin so you can protect your stack and sleep easily. You can find out more at Casa I.O. which is C A S A I.O. that is Casa I.O. yeah. This is one of the most difficult subjects to discuss because depending on your choice of language, you're either a Zionist or a terrorist sympathizer. There's. It's very hard to find a middle ground. I do.

[Connor]

So this was October 7th, was that.

[Peter McCormack]

Israel's army has a long and well documented history of human rights abuses and indiscriminate killing. Similarly, Israeli security forces regularly abused, detained and tortured children. But also Hamas is a horrific group. Let's not pretend that. That Israel is not guilty of crimes itself. I mean, I just. I'm. I'm not Douglas Murray. I'm not a professor, I don't have a degree. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I can only say what I see. And I just see. I've seen decades my entire life history of people Killing each other. Just killing each other.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you think it's been disproportionate in either way?

[Peter McCormack]

Well, if you measure purely on the number of people who've died, yeah, of course. I mean, essentially you've got a well funded state with advanced weapon systems against people with stones and catapults.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And often if you have power and strength, you get to dominate over somebody who doesn't have powers and strength, which, you know, is something that's been very clear to me. But I, you will have people far more intelligent than me understand history far more. Who will tell me a version of history from a Jewish perspective. Sure. And you'll also have one from a Palestinian perspective. All I know is today we have the Jewish state and we have people who live there, and we have the occupation of Gaza and the west bank, which appears to be a place where a number of Palestinians reside and maybe get to work within Israel, but also are under certain controls. But I just see a lot of death. I see a lot of death and a lot of killing. And, and I, I'm not here to give the answer. I'm just, I'm more here to represent the voice of, of a normal person who doesn't want to take any kind of ideological position and just go, this has been decades of people killing each other. It's fucking terrible. Like, I don't want to pick a side. I just want people to stop fucking killing each other. I think people should be free. I think the Palestinians should be free. I think they should be free from what is essentially a prison. I think they should be free for their children to have a future. They should be able to build businesses and trade. They should not be bombed to the extent they've been bombed and they should have a country of their own.

[Dilly Hussain]

See, that would be a controversial statement to many Zionists.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Right now.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I will probably have a controversial statement for many.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, no, and I, but, but, and I will have people now attacking me for saying that you, this, you either pick a side or you get everyone attack you. And I just, I don't like war. Like most normal people. I don't like war. I don't like people killing each other. You would never hear me give any sympathy to Hamas, but I can understand why people, you know, if, if you see missiles coming over and you see your family blown up and you're building blown up and you're pulling babies out, I understand why people get angry. I want to fight the Jewish state also on the side of the Jewish. Understand that you Know, wasn't it today four people were shot, five people, it's just kill back and forth, back and forth. I mean, where are we going with this? I, I, what I do fear, what I think the, the natural conclusion to this is there will no longer, eventually there won't be a Gaza. It will just be become part of Israel and it'll be redeveloped.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you think Israel has your personal thoughts? Do you think they could potentially seek beyond the borders of Gaza and the West Bank?

[Peter McCormack]

But they always have. I mean, if you read Noam Chomsky's the Faith, the fateful. Was it the fateful triangle, the relationship between Palestine, Israel and, and America, they've always said there's been this encroachment on land. So for example, great Israel plan. Well, yeah, so when the, you know, for example, when they put up the, the, the kind of border barriers that wasn't within Israeli land, that went across into what was considered Palestinian land and, and you know, would cut off maybe someone's orchard or someone's farmland. Like I'm aware it's happened, but I don't want to be the guy who, who's interviewed on this because it's not, it's not my area of expertise. All I know is I just see people killing each other over. Dave Smith is one of the best speakers, I think, on this.

[Dilly Hussain]

He's a really good fellow. I'm considering his background.

[Peter McCormack]

He's Jewish.

[Dilly Hussain]

Jewish stand up comedian. I think comedians in the last 22 months have really come up in providing a different way of discussing this topic. Bassam Yousef or what's his name? You just mentioned the Jewish comedian Dave Smith. Yeah, Dave Smith. These guys, you know, you wouldn't think that they're traditional pundits on this subject matter, but they've come and they've offered a kind of really cynical and reflective way to discuss it. Kind of just holding up a mirror and saying, do you understand what you're standing up for?

[Peter McCormack]

I mean, the number of people who've been killed since October 7th is horrific.

[Dilly Hussain]

64 and a half thousand is a conservative estimate. I mean, in Gaza, I think it's somewhere beyond 80,000. And again, I'm being conservative where we're not talking about the trauma, the amputations, the loss of life now from malnutrition.

[Peter McCormack]

And starvation, permanent mental health issues, all of that.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's generational. So whether it was the secular PLO 20 years ago or the Islamist Hamas today, it'll be someone else tomorrow. And the ideology doesn't really matter. So much because it's about the occupation of a land which many believe has been unjustly and you know, be taken from them.

[Peter McCormack]

What do you think? You'll know a lot more about this than me, but what do you consider would be the, the best and most likely and possible outcome for the region, do you think?

[Dilly Hussain]

What I think would be a realistic or what I would like because two very different things.

[Peter McCormack]

So tell me what you would like first. But then what is your compromise?

[Dilly Hussain]

I can't see the current Israeli state as it is and has it kind and as it has been since its inception to have longevity. A state simply cannot survive on a perpetual state of war.

[Peter McCormack]

Well it has though, but for how long?

[Dilly Hussain]

How long will that, how long will that survive for? And with the American public opinion shifting so significantly in the last 22 months, where the Gen Z and Zoomers and the Gen Alpha coming up now, these are going to be tomorrow's voters and these are, I'm talking about the Trumpists, the Magas, your Nick Fuentes type of followers and these, the Groipers, all that movement, they're not going to be so sympathetic to giving Israel a blank check in the years to come. So something's going to have to give. What I would like is for Palestinians to be given their land back, the land that was stolen from them to be given back. Because we're not talking about hundreds of years ago. Whenever Muslims, and I rarely see this, you won't really hear Muslims talking about Islamic Spain. It was the El that they took. They were there for 800 years, they came as part of an Islamic conquest, they were there for 800 years and then as part of the reconquest they were kicked out. But you won't hear Muslims talk about oh we lost Spain, you won't really hear Muslims talking about losing India after the Mughal rule when the British arrived because those were like centuries ago. We're talking about conflict which kind of happened within our grandparents time. The Balfour Declaration, the British mandate after World War I, the creation the Nakba, the creation of the state in 1948, the 67 wars, the 73 war, Oslo accords, Camp David. It's all in our lifetime, Peter. So I think it would be fair to say that justice can be done now or meaningful steps towards that. I can't see Palestinians or the Arab people accepting the current regime. And there will always be a state of war. What I believe there should be a meaningful long term ceasefire which in Arabic is called hudna, which basically means a cessation of conflict with Long term objectives to basically live in some type of peace. There can't be daily encroachment on Palestinian lands in the West Bank. There can't be violations to the Masjid Al Aqsa, the third holiest site of the mosque. There can't be these daily incursions into Palestinian land and people's dignity. The laws have to change in terms of how Arab, Palestinian Muslims and Christians have to go through dozens of checkpoints to get from one place to another, whereas an Israeli can go to that same location. But within minutes these things have to change. This. It's just not a recipe and it's not conducive for peace. Apartheid South Africa had to come to an end. Sure, we can have a conversation about how South Africa looks now, but Apartheid South Africa had to come to an end.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, Northern Ireland had to come to an end.

[Dilly Hussain]

Northern Ireland had to come to an end. So similarly, the current Israeli regime will have to come to an end because it's just untenable. Peace cannot be maintained like this.

[Peter McCormack]

Sorry, you said the regime has to come to an end. What do you mean by that?

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, the current regime and all the regimes that have preceded it that have taken a policy of basically establishing Greater Israel. Look, as we speak right now Israel is bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, of course Palestine. Four countries it was not too long ago in a 12 day engagement with Iran. So we have to just be very realistic about how is it that a country the size of Israel, who is pretty much entirely backed financially, militarily by the US carries on like this in the region. Now they will say we're around hostile neighbors. We're around neighbors who launch missiles at us. We're around neighbors who basically want to see, don't want to see the existence of Israel.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's the narrative that's pushed.

[Peter McCormack]

But it, but it's kind of true.

[Dilly Hussain]

As I said, the Israeli regime as it is now, I don't think it should exist.

[Peter McCormack]

The regime is in the political party or the country. State of Israel.

[Dilly Hussain]

The State of Israel and the different various regimes that have preceded Netanyahu as it is right now, I don't think it's conducive to peace in the Middle.

[Peter McCormack]

East, but it's not realistic.

[Dilly Hussain]

If Ireland was realistic and South Africa was realistic.

[Peter McCormack]

No, no, but what is it? The outcome that be clear on the.

[Dilly Hussain]

Outcome that you're Muslim, Jews and Christians to live in peace together in the holy land together and the conflation happens.

[Peter McCormack]

But does that mean the end of.

[Dilly Hussain]

The state of Israel potentially as it is right now, it could be something else.

[Peter McCormack]

What do you mean by something else?

[Dilly Hussain]

Because we don't know. We haven't even started to have that conversation because Israel has unequivocally rejected the two state solution in the last two years. They're like, this is something we're just simply not going to entertain. And they've obviously framed that argument around the events of October 7th, basically saying that, look, how are we going to be neighbors with people who carry this out, thinking that history began on October 7th? But you know, no nation state has a right to exist. Fundamentally, whether it's Bangladesh, the country of my ethnic heritage, whether it's the United Kingdom, whether it's Congo, no country in its essence has a right to exist. These things are so fluid. They change with history. States and countries and empires, borders shift, ideologies shift, leadership shift. These things change. They're very fluid. The very notion of the nation state, it's very new, it's only been around. Most flags in the world are like last 80, 90 years. Things can change, things can rapidly change.

[Peter McCormack]

But would a better solution be somehow to reach a two state solution with as minimal conflict as possible?

[Dilly Hussain]

For me personally, as a Muslim, as someone who feels very strongly about the Palestinian cause, it would go against my values to believe in a two state solution. I'll tell you why. I believe the whole of Palestine, historic Palestine, to be the land of the indigenous people of that land. For me to recognize whether that state happens or not, or whether it's a precursor to something better, that's for the people of that land to decide. But for me, I feel entirely uncomfortable and it goes against my own morality to give legitimacy to an idea of peace when that peace was ultimately born out of an illegal occupation and land theft and now genocide. So for me, it just doesn't sit right with me. I believe what is more realistic and what's more probable is Hudna. A realistic long term ceasefire, a cessation of violence on both sides to give time for leaders on both sides to emerge, to think about more of a practical roadmap for peace. The two state solution we've been banging on about since the last 50, 60 years. The reason why it's not happened is because Israel, from my perspective and the perspective of many Palestinians and those who kind of lean towards that way, and I would actually say that that is probably the position of most now, especially in the last 22 months, is that for there to be any kind of serious, meaningful talks about peace, the violence needs to stop, the illegal occupation needs to stop the apartheid type laws, need to stop the kind of aspirations of a Greater Israel, need to stop Judean Samarra, these, these conceptions of a Torah Talmudic Greater Israel. This is all not conducive for peace talks. Palestinians want their land back or they want compensation for the land that was stolen not too long ago, 50, 60 years ago. Things that happen in our lifetime, in our grand, not our lifetime, but in our grandparents lifetime. So I think if we're more serious about expectations, I think peace is more possible. I think if we BS around things that we think are going to work, it's not going to work. Explain to me how is it that the US irrespective of it's Trump or Biden before him, think that peace can be achieved in the Middle east when you are giving that blank check to Israel every year of American taxpayers money, when you are giving them the weapon after weapon to carry out that genocide. One of the reasons why Palestine Action, a group that's been recently banned, was because they were, they eventually ended up targeting an RAF base in, in Oxfordshire.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, they didn't, they damaged.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. Two warplanes that were used for reconnaissance and were assisting the Israelis. That's what, that's what the claim was. So I think people in the west, voters, white Westerners, non Muslims, I think they're slowly waking up and they've, they've, they're realizing that there's an unhealthy proximity between our respective governments and the Israeli state, that there appears to be one law or one type of foreign policy that we adopt with them and something completely different that we adopt with the rest of the world.

[Peter McCormack]

It does seem to go down political ideologies as well. There's a, there's a pressure within conservatives or within government. So if you're within government, there is a pressure to side with the Israeli government or if you're a conservative, you tend to side with the Israeli government. Which is why maybe I'm a bit of an outlier on this because I'm not a lefty. But at the same time I'm very sympathetic to what's happened to the Palestinians over the decades, certainly since World War II. Very sympathetic. And I'll get hammered for this.

[Dilly Hussain]

One of the tragedies of the entire thing is that many of those enacting the policies that we're talking about are descendants of those who suffered the Holocaust. And you can actually go back to the early footage of the ships arriving in the ports of Haifa, that Palestinians welcomed them with open arms, shared their Homes with them, shared their courtyards and their, what do you call those things where, you know, you grow tangerines and lime and lemons. Orchards.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

Share their orchards with them. Things, things with jiggy. And then all of a sudden, well, not all of a sudden, the Jewish groups were being armed by the British state. So now we're going to go into history now. And, and, and the British Mandate, the colonial British mandate of the time, played a role in the situation that we find ourselves in today. That's why I don't accept this argument that why is everyone bringing issues of the Middle east here to the UK and the West? Well, in the UK specifically, the Balfour Declaration was signed here. You know, Sykes Picot was between Britain and France just towards the end of World War I. So Britain has an active role in that. There are weapons that are being made in the United Kingdom, are being used on women and children. Our taxpayers money is going towards supporting Israel in some shape or form, especially in the foreign policy areas, more so for Americans. And that's why there's been a huge awakening in the kind of MAGA circles, especially with the grip. Do you know much about the Grupo movement? The Nick Fuentes?

[Peter McCormack]

Yes. He's being considered anti Semitic, isn't it?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. So they like. I know you tweeted recently about ethno nationalism, right? Yes, we can talk about that later. But those arguments now become very mainstream. They've now.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, I see it in our YouTube comments.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, yeah, it's not fringe anymore. I mean ethno nationalism, when we talk about British nationalism, I mean it kind of falls within three and I think it's the same across the pond. Ethno nationalism is basically those who want to see a whiter Britain or a whiter America. Then you have Christian nationalists who basically have a pan Christian understanding. So we're against all immigration, even Christian, non white immigration. But white Christian migration is cool. So it's kind of an ethno nationalism, but grounded on Christianity, but also quite racial. And then you have civic nationalists. I would put Tommy into that category. I'd put reform into that category. But even the kind of ethno nationalist talking points have entered those circles now. So whenever you hear about the demographic shift of Europe or the uk, how white people are being replaced or like they're being outbreeded and stuff like this. These are ethno nationalist talking points that are now pretty mainstream within right wing circles and they tend.

[Peter McCormack]

We should come back to that. I just wondered, is there a contradiction in, in your framing? Because on one hand, you've said the idea of the nation state, there's no inherent legitimacy for a nation state to exist. You said borders move, borders change. Things, things are flu, things are fluid, things are changed.

[Dilly Hussain]

Then why would not accept the two state solution?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. And why wouldn't you therefore accept that there is the state now of Israel, borders have moved and therefore that's now there's enough legitimacy for that to exist. That there seems to be a contradiction in your framing it.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think those are two separate things. They're not mutually exclusive. So to accept that nation states or any nation doesn't have an inalienable right to just exist, these things form as a result of war and historical events and various kind of things are happening on the ground and so forth. But to say that because of that principle I have to accept the two state solution of the state of Israel. It's not necessarily the same thing because those borders can still change. I want those borders to change. I'm part of a movement that wants those borders to change. So I can't accept the current borders.

[Peter McCormack]

But, but, but there is a contradiction. There is a contradiction there because. And the problem is, is borders do change and they seem to always change with conflict. It's always with conflict. And so if we want to enter, enter killing into conflict, there has to be almost acceptance on both sides that a nation state needs to exist and borders need to be respected and protected.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I'm not against all those things. I guess what I'm saying is that for me as a Muslim.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

And as well as someone who's trying not to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people, because there's even a spectrum of opinion there between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and the more kind of Islamist inclined factions. What I'm saying is that to accept the current situation is something I cannot accept. I morally cannot accept that even if.

[Peter McCormack]

It meant peace, if there was a proposed two state solution, this is a recycled.

[Dilly Hussain]

We've been here so many times before, there's no meaningful effort towards that. Israel has unequivocally rejected that.

[Peter McCormack]

Of course. But, but if there was, of course.

[Dilly Hussain]

A two state solution now is better than what the situation is now. If you're asking me that now, you're giving me a kind of a better or worse kind of situation. Of course, a two state solution where Palestinians have their own right and dignity to move freely and have their own kind of state apparatus and so forth. Of course that's better than a genocide and an increasingly illegally occupied west bank.

[Peter McCormack]

Would, would that Mean you could come to terms and accept the existence of the Jewish state and come to accept that also that Jewish people living there deserve to live in peace.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think Jewish people living in peace. And I actually spoke to many rabbis with regards to this pr. They are very frustrated with the conflation between Jewish people's right to survive, exist and thrive with the entity of Israel and the ideology of Zionism. We need to kind of make that distinction that not all Jews are Zionists. Most Jews are.

[Peter McCormack]

I've seen rabbis protesting against the war.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, loads.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

And they're kind of either Hasidic or they're very like liberal and left leaning. They vary. So I think we need to not conflate Jewish or Jewish people and Judaism of Zionism.

[Peter McCormack]

No, I'm saying the Jewish people who do live in Israel, do they deserve to live in peace?

[Dilly Hussain]

Of course they deserve to live in peace, but they need to also understand that the living, their, them living in peace can't be at the expense at the bloodshed and the, and the oppression of Palestinians. What type of living would that be?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but that's not how I framed it.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'm saying, I'm countering that.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So I'm saying that of course any human being's right to exist in peace and dignity surely cannot be at the expense of the oppression of others. And I think fundamentally that's, that's, that's what it is.

[Peter McCormack]

And the sad thing is, I expect as long as I live, if it's a few more decades, this will be the same it has been for, for as long as I've lived. I expect a perpetual state of war in the region between Israel and some of its neighboring countries. I don't ever expect a normalization of relations between Israel and Iran, although we, we got close with Saudi and Israel, didn't we? Yeah, I mean, very close to October 7th.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yes. And some have said that the kind of thinking behind Hamas's thinking behind that was to obviously disrupt that. By the way, the normalization idea is something that's not really popular in the Arab Muslim world.

[Peter McCormack]

Peter.

[Dilly Hussain]

Look, we just have to be brutally honest. Israel, the perception of Israel, the state and the ideology of Zionism is something which is seen as, you know, existentially kind of oppressive to the local people. And that's just fact. It's not because they are anti Semitic.

[Peter McCormack]

Because I would separate the government because the state is the government, but the state is also the people.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

Like I am British, but I do not believe my government represents me at all.

[Dilly Hussain]

And you're saying that in a secular liberal democracy, in the case of the Arab Muslim world, there's very few secular liberal democracies, so they're not really representative governments.

[Peter McCormack]

But do secular democracy, liberal democracy, strike. I've been out to Lebanon. Yeah. Had a great time. Loved it. But it's a struggle. I mean, do you. Yeah, it's a bit of a tangent, but do you believe that secular liberal democracies can work, or do you think each country should have a base framework of what its religion is? So, for example, the latter. The. The latter. So do you believe. So, for example, I was looking at Pakistan. I think Bangladesh is similar. In Pakistan you can only be president if you're Muslim, and they hold. Only hold 10 seats in parliament for minority religions.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And that's to ensure.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'm not sure about this, I'm not sure about the specifics, but, yeah, I'm pretty sure. But those type of setups exist because.

[Peter McCormack]

Then it remains fundamentally an Islamic country.

[Dilly Hussain]

I mean, I mean, I wouldn't call them Islamic, but Muslim majority countries.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, Muslim majority countries.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. Yeah. I'm very careful with my, my terms. I'll tell you why. Because for me, for something to be Islamic, its reference point and its basis has to be Islam. And I don't think the vast majority of Muslim nation states qualify as that. Most Muslim majority nation states today, and there's about 50 of them, the vast majority, they're secular states. Islam might be mentioned in their constitution, it might be mentioned in other parts of like marital law, inheritance law and stuff like that. But otherwise they operate within the frameworks of global capitalism. They work within the framework of what is acceptable under international law and stuff like this. And why I'm saying that the entire basis of their countries, it's the kind of what was left to them after the previous colonial powers, after the British and the French left many of these countries, that was the kind of setup that they left and it was the thing of the time to emulate the leading nations of the time. Right. So if the leading nations of the 20th century was the west, naturally the states that had kind of got independence would want to imitate those countries. Whenever people say to me, forgive me for the digress and the tangent, but it's related. Oh, well, can we build a church in, in Mecca? Well, obviously not, because Saudi Arabia never claimed to be a secular liberal democracy. If they claimed to be a secular liberal democracy that believed in, you know, mutual tolerance, religious freedoms, in the way we understand it here in the west, then I can understand the hypocrisy, but they don't. It's an absolute. It's an absolute monarchy.

[Peter McCormack]

Right? Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So like. Or why can't we build a church in Afghanistan under. Under the Taliban? Well, that's pretty obvious because they don't claim to have that framework to say that you have religious freedoms the way it's understood in the west, where you can build churches and do this kind of stuff. So why hold a country to a standard which it doesn't hold to itself?

[Peter McCormack]

No, I agree, but do you. Again, back to. Do you think. Do you think a secular liberal democracy can work, do you think, or do you think you will always end up with religious conflict?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think secular liberal democracies and the nation state is a distinctly European experience. It was a European experience. I was born out of the oppression of the church and actually many of the founding fathers of the Enlightenment, you know, if you think about the basis of why they were having these discussions, it was laudable. They wanted to think freely. They wanted to have conversations that were heavily censored. They did not like the oppressive shackles of the church, the way it was manipulating texts and dogma and, you know, taking money from the people and all that kind of stuff. Very laudable, very praiseworthy. But what ended up happening was what I felt over the course of time was a total abandonment of traditional. A total abandonment of what was sacred and what kind of held the very fabric of Christendom together. But that experience wasn't the case for other societies and other civilizations. So I think what happens is that a fair amount of European thinkers and commentators, they try to impose the European experience of democracy to the rest of the world, and it doesn't work.

[Peter McCormack]

Never works.

[Dilly Hussain]

It doesn't work. Nation states, secularism, liberal democracy, these are distinctly European things. That part of the European tradition that. And it was relevant and it succeeded because of its very distinct struggle with its religious authority. Islam was completely. The Islamic civilization was completely different in the sense that it didn't have a kind of tension between religious authority and free thinking. And I know that sounds crazy, but if you think about the golden era of Islamic civilization, whether it's Islamic Andalusia or. Or Abbasid Baghdad or Ottoman Istanbul, these were the centers of thinking and learning for many times. Right. So therefore, Islam's issue was that or the Islamic civilization's issue, I felt, was the rise of the European powers in terms of their colonial aspirations, in terms of finding the new world an accumulation of huge wealth, modernizing their armies, modernizing their navies. It's just a case of sometimes one civilization is running the show. Someone comes along who's stronger, and things just change. History is fluid like that. But the.

[Peter McCormack]

Isn't that what's happened with Israel?

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, because Israel is. I'll tell you why. Because first and foremost, that's pre modern times. We're talking. We're talking about a time now where Israel as a country, as a state, was formed after World War II because of what happened to the Jews in Europe. So the issue of anti Semitism was a European problem, which many feel was exported to the Arab world. Like, hey, guys, there's a thing called Zionism. This is a promised land to the Jews 3,000 years ago. And guess what, Palestinians, you're going to have to put up with it. Boom, there you go. They could have given a chunk of Germany, those who actually perpetrated the Holocaust. Why did the issue of, by the way, Jews have historically always been expelled in Europe from one country to another? I think between 1290 to the 1700s, there were like dozens of cases of pogroms and expulsions of Jews within Europe. You'll struggle to find that in Islamic history. Yes, there were conflicts at times, but generally speaking, after the Inquisition, the Jews were unsettled in the Ottoman lands. So the reason why Israel is different, Peter, is because the context in which it was born, the context in which that state was formed, was so unnatural in that it was decided in Europe as a result of a European genocide that was then placed in the heartlands of the Arab Muslim world after the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I and then after World War II. And now we have the problem that we have now. When you look at the history of many European states today, even the Eastern European, Central European, they can kind of root their history back centuries, if not over a millennia, right? Jews have always been in that holy land. You know, if you look at the Abrahamic tradition, Jews, Christians, Muslims, we kind of. We come from the same lineage, right? And that's Abraham. And then we kind of split between Isaac and Ishmael. So the question isn't about do Jews have a right to exist? That's outrageous. Professors, they have a right to exist, have a right to worship. And if you were to compare history between. And that's why I find the term Judeo Christian laughable. Because if you look, if you compare history, Christians have over centuries expelled Jews far more frequently in Europe than the Islamic civilization has. So for me to accept why, there's various reasons. I think some have some historical legitimacy, others are Grounded in conspiracy, anti Semitic conspiracy. Obviously it's the obvious thing that many Christians, particularly the Catholics, would believe that the Jews conspired with the Romans against Jesus, against their God. I think the issue to do with usury, I think there's obviously anti Semitic blood libels which are genuine blood libels and there's some things which are not quite genuine things to do with that. Jews are subversive and they want to take over Europe and they want to cause issues and, you know, subjugate people through loans and stuff. This is, these are, these are mainstream talks.

[Peter McCormack]

These are not just anti Semitic tropes.

[Dilly Hussain]

A lot, a lot of it is, A lot of it is. But you can't take away from the fact that medieval Europe had a certain perception of Jews which was grounded in that they were seen as the killers of Christ and the conspirers against Christ. And that's not something that's that historically debatable really, because the rabbis of the time of Jesus were not big fans of him. And there are parts of the Talmud which basically say that Jesus is boiling in excrement. So considering medieval Europe, European Christian kings, to have to believe that, it kind of, you kind of understand why at that time they did what they did. Of course it's unacceptable. But that's the medieval European narrative that Jews at a time were a subversive group of people that kind of enslaved kings and caused civil wars through usury, loans and stuff like this. This is well within ethno nationalists always talk about it. They talk about the Kalergi Plan and they talk about white replacement and they talk always about these evil Jewish conspiracies to kind of have Christians and Muslims be in a state of perpetual war whilst they're making money there, creating wars there, creating a refugee crisis there. These are very, very mainstream talking points now amongst some right wing circles. I mean, I know we went on a mad.

[Peter McCormack]

No, no, it's fine. I mean, I've never had an issue with any Jewish person ever. Never had conflict, never had argument. I've never experienced Jewish people going into a community and causing any problems or issues. I've found that Jewish people are very hard working, disciplined with their work, very rooted in family and tradition. I've never had any negative experience. But I've also. Which is why I've talked about it on the show. I've never personally had any negative experience with Muslims, with Hindus, with Sikhs. I mean, when you come from Bedford, Bedford seems to be this, you know, we have our problems, right? And my experiences and Everyone else's. But when people have tried to lead me down that conversation with regards to the issues of the uk, which I talk about a lot, and they say, well, we need to deal with the Muslim problem. I'm saying, look, I'm from Bedford. We're a very well integrated community. We have large Italian community, We only fall out with them during the World cup if we play them. We have a large Indian community, we have a large Muslim community, we have a large Eastern European community. We actually all kind of get on all right.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think Bedford is one of the very few places which you can kind of point out and say, look, if you want to say multicultural, multiculturalism has failed, I don't think Bedford would be an example where it actually probably hasn't failed.

[Peter McCormack]

No, it's totally. It has succeeded. People want to claim it's failed.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

But there'll be people right now watching this, angry and tapping and going, well, Bedford hasn't always been. This is what they say, it hasn't always been multicultural. You're just young. Back in, I don't know, 60 years ago it wasn't. Fine, that's 60 years ago. I'm telling you right now. What we have now is a very, kind of very well integrated town. I've actually said the biggest problem in our town, drugs are a problem. But a lot of the problems that I've been dealing with in Bedford is from native white drug addicts, native white alcoholics, native to Bedford, maybe Milton Keynes, Northampton. That's the biggest issue I see we have in Bedford right now. We do have drugs issues. We do have criminal gangs from a range of backgrounds.

[Dilly Hussain]

Every town and city.

[Peter McCormack]

Every town does.

[Dilly Hussain]

It does, it does.

[Peter McCormack]

But we don't. We haven't had protests about hotels, we haven't had. I don't. We put some people have tried to bring racial conflicts into the town. What happened with Queen's park when the EDL wanted to do their march through?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

People tried to bring what they think is a problem to Bedford.

[Connor]

But you saw what happened. What, you saw what happened last summer.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Connor]

Everyone came out together and it was a mixed community and everyone stood on.

[Dilly Hussain]

I sent you, I sent your dad the video. I was the one that organized that. I was one of the main organizers of that gathering. Five to 600 people came out. Muslims, Sikhs, had Irish lads. He had mixed race lads there and they came out. And I remember I was telling you on the phone, when you were on the phone, when you were in the car with your son last weekend, I was saying, to you. We went around and we told all our Eastern European neighbors, and they're old Italians, and the churches that, look, don't worry, we're going to be here. Nothing's going to be protected. The church, we protected the Sikh temple. And that is why it kind of leads into the whole Tommy conversation when he. When he basically said twice that the heroin trade in Bedford is controlled by the Muslim community in Queens Park. Yeah, it's an outrageous statement, patently false.

[Peter McCormack]

And, well, I can't prove it either way, but. But, but it's unsure. Well, but I can't prove it either way. You know, how.

[Dilly Hussain]

How would you prove something which can't be categorized in that way? Like how.

[Peter McCormack]

That's not to say it is or it isn't. I'm just saying. Look, let's go back and actually, how does.

[Dilly Hussain]

How does a faith community control heroin trade?

[Peter McCormack]

So.

[Dilly Hussain]

So.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, that. That was the more interesting point that you put to me. Yeah. When you actually said to me when. When drugs are controlled, say, by Irish.

[Dilly Hussain]

English, Eastern European, South American, they don't.

[Peter McCormack]

Say a Protestant gang or Christian. Or Christian gang or the Christian community. Yeah, they don't say that. They don't say that at all. And. And that was a fair point, and I couldn't even disagree with you on that. The separate point are the drugs. Are there drug gangs in that area? And it seems to me that with Muslims, when there are perceived issues or issues, we group it under the religion, but when there's other groups, we don't group under the religion.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you find that problematic?

[Peter McCormack]

It's new to me. I. And I think so. And. But the reason I find it problematic is actually if there are Muslim drug gangs or gangs of drug dealers who are of Muslim faith, they're probably not considered good Muslims because they're probably. They're probably not being faithful to their religion and what they're doing.

[Dilly Hussain]

I don't think drug dealers generally are motivated by religion.

[Peter McCormack]

No.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's why when you categorize crime and crime stats, it's not broken down by faith. Now, terrorism could be politically motivated. Violence could be.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

The jail population and the demographics of prisoners, sure. But crimes like drugs and narcotics, like murder, like rape, like robbery, like fraud, is simply not categorized by faith. So to say that a faith community. And I guess, you know, when I first tweeted and I called you out, because that's basically where it all started.

[Peter McCormack]

Right. On every platform there was, I got.

[Dilly Hussain]

Ping, ping on Facebook connects. Facebook connects. And then we had the email correspondence as well, yeah, I think that's why I'm, by the way, Peter, as grateful as I am. And honestly, you've done the best thing and the most honorable thing is to invite me on and invoice somebody to have a conversation.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, this is. But this is what free speech is.

[Dilly Hussain]

Sure, for sure. But I think the frustration is still very much that Tommy came on and he basically said, the Muslim community, that's. I still.

[Peter McCormack]

Okay, so look, I'm just trying to think why. Why is it categorized? Sometimes we hear it's like a way of grouping. Right. Sometimes we hear Eastern European gangs rather than say, you know, specific countries. Sometimes. And you'll explain this better to me, within the Muslim community, I'm assuming there is people from all different countries and background. So it's. Yeah, it's an easy way of grouping, perhaps a lazy way, but an easy way of that people have grouped people together. Like that's happened with the sex crimes that we've seen across the country with the rape gangs. And I think it's just become a way people have grouped it together. That's. That's a. But that's a separate point to the challenging of Tommy, because I did take issue with that, because I'm pretty sure, I mean, I did say that we don't have an integration issue with Muslims in Bedford. I did say that. And I also. When he said about the Muslim gangs, I said, no, we have county lines here, but live process and interpretation, etc. Etc. You've done how many interviews then? You know, it's challenging. Sometimes you miss things. Sometimes you're looking at your notes. You know, you just go through a conversation.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think what it was that you. Like I said to you. I think I said this to you in writing and on Foreigner. Had you been a non Bidfordian.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

If you were not from the town, I think it would have been excusable for many.

[Peter McCormack]

But I said no. I said, no, we have county lines.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, but you didn't.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, look, look, your expectation from me in a live environment is different from what I delivered.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think people just thought, Peter McCormack, chairman of a football club in Bedford, has a cafe. He's a man of Bedford, wants to be better, wants better to be great. Again, doesn't want to on Bedford, but allowed someone to basically talk about an entire community that's part of Bedford.

[Peter McCormack]

But again, it's not that I allowed him or didn't check him or push.

[Dilly Hussain]

Back or push back or correct him or check or check him or even ask Tommy Where'd you get that from? Yeah. Huge bloody statement to make.

[Peter McCormack]

You did look that up at the time, didn't you, Con? I did.

[Connor]

It's very hard to find.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you know why, bro? Do you know why it's hard to find? It's hard to find because crime is not broken down to faith categories.

[Peter McCormack]

No. No. Although we did find examples. Like we looked across Bedford afterwards. We spent some time and we found it across. Across all areas of Bedford, across all different races. There you go. We found it. We did. I spoke to a friend I know is high up in the police, and he said to me, said, well, what he's saying on a national level is kind of true. He said heroin is controlled, he said, by Muslim gangs. He used that term. And he said, but it can be from a number of different countries. It could be Turkish Muslims, it could be Albanian Muslims, it could be Bangladeshian Muslims. And he said, that's natural because of where it comes from in the world. And he said, cats and cocaine is controlled by European white gangs. And so he used white for the European gangs and Muslim for. It's the way it's been categorized.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. I remember we were texting each other when that happened, and I was just like, would he have used Christian to describe the South Americans, the Irish or the English? Or, I wonder, all the West Indian gangs who are which? Most West Indians are Christians. Like, we're going to call them Christian gangs.

[Peter McCormack]

What is a better way of categorizing it?

[Dilly Hussain]

It's maybe not racializing it or putting religious markers at.

[Peter McCormack]

No, but how. How, like, how would you describe.

[Dilly Hussain]

You can say a Pakistani firm, a South Asian firm, an Irish firm. A mixed gang.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Connor]

Do you not think we should track, just in case we did see variations in numbers and then we would be like, as a nation.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Connor]

That doesn't align with us. We don't want that.

[Dilly Hussain]

What I would say is that to use religion as a marker for particular crimes, you'd have to ground it on. Is there a justification or a motivation on religion?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

I. E. Is this criminal, organized criminal group, are they doing what they're doing because their religion has somehow justified it, motivated them? If no, then why is it. Why should it be used as a marker?

[Peter McCormack]

No, look, if it's just a lazy.

[Dilly Hussain]

Way to categorize things, okay, fine, we can just find better ways to categorize things. But the very fact that these types of crimes are not motivated by religion and people of all religions and our religion embark on it, I don't think it should be Categorized and categorizing in the way that Tommy did. Unfortunately for many, in this current climate, and in light of Queen's park being targeted last summer is very recklessly dangerous.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, look, I would put the question to him as well. So I think it's an interesting question because I hadn't had it actually framed to me that only in this scenario do we. Do we categorize via religion. We don't, you know, and there are, you know, other differences. Maybe in Northern Ireland, there's been categorizations based on religion because there was a separation between the Catholics and Protestants. So that has happened. And we have had various sectarian violence in different parts of the world. Right, so I understand that, but. But, yeah, no, look, you. You. I can't disagree. You raise an interesting point. Why? Because we've done it with. It's not just the drugs, with. With a lot of the rape gangs. A lot of the.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, we're going to discuss that.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, a lot of the categories, there's been separate. There has been Pakistani rape, ghosts remaining Pakistani, but. But also Muslim rape gangs that.

[Dilly Hussain]

Have you ever asked Tommy that, though? Have you ever asked him. Why do you frame it like that?

[Peter McCormack]

No, not at all. Because it's only recently that you and I spoke.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And that's why I think it'd be interesting to have the two of you together, to have that conversation without the. Without the gloves. No, I do. I. I'd be fascinated to hear him explain it to you and you two discuss it, if it could be done calmly and I'd be interested in that. And I. It's. It's something I will probably ask a few people or if I hear it brought up, say, well, why have you said a Muslim gang, rather an Asian gang or a Pakistani gang?

[Dilly Hussain]

So. So Tommy would say. Tommy would say that the reason why he chooses to use Muslim or Pakistani, but Muslim grooming gangs is because the Prophet Muhammad upon him be peaceful, married Aisha at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9. So that's the predominant position. There's other minority positions. I said 12, 15, 15, 18. But 6 and 9 is the predominant position. Now, if we take today's sexual morality and framework, that's unacceptable.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

In the same way, when we talk about the biblical marriage of Jacob and Rachel or Rebecca and Isaac, some say that it was. She was three years old. Others say that, you know, Rachel was 12 years old.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know any of this, by the way.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yes, these are biblical prophets. So Isaac, Isaac, Jacob, even Mary, mother Mary biblical scholars say that her marriage to Joseph was about 12, 13 years old. So many Christian kings betrothed and married young girls and they did so for centuries. And it's interesting that this whole thing about the prophet. I'm talking about what we're.

[Peter McCormack]

You think this is where Tommy comes from on this point?

[Dilly Hussain]

No, but he's been on camera saying that.

[Peter McCormack]

But he. So you think he uses Muslim drug gangs because of this?

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no, no, no. I'm talking about the grooming gangs because he's talking about the grooming gang. So the grooming gang. Certainly he has said it on multiple platforms that if their prophet married a six year old and consummate that marriage at the age of nine, and he's supposed to be the best example for all Muslims, of course the natural trajectory would be to then sexually abuse young girls. He said that on multiple platforms. But what I posit back, and it's very easy to just address this issue, is that if that was such a huge issue, there's been over a thousand years of civilizational wars between Christendom and the Islamic world. Not once did any major Christian polemicist or scholar ever say Muhammad married a six year old, consummate at nine, therefore it's a false religion. Let's go and kill the Saracens. That was never the case because they knew that in pre modern times those things were accepted and normal.

[Peter McCormack]

I want to get back to the, to talk about the rape gangs. But Connor didn't, didn't in the interview, didn't Tommy actually. I think one of the things Tommy actually said though, there was a plan, there was a plan to poison.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. So he's a, a, a chemical jihad. Chemical, chemical jihad. To flood. To flood Britain and target white non Muslims with drugs. Yeah, so I pause it back to.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, no, I just want to know the detail. Yeah. Can you look that up, see if you find anything on that?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, he said that on a few platforms even mentioned like gangs like the Gambinos in Luton and stuff like this. How does anyone ensure that drugs never reaches a Muslim and only reaches a white non Muslim?

[Peter McCormack]

I'm pretty sure drug dealers don't care who their customers are.

[Dilly Hussain]

Thank you very much. Thank you for that.

[Peter McCormack]

It's a business.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's a business. They couldn't give a rats, they couldn't care less who's buying. The point of the matter is, if a high chain supplier is giving only exclusively white drug dealers the drugs, how are you going to ensure that he's not going to sell it onto A Muslim. So Tommy's. That thing falls flat.

[Peter McCormack]

But where does that chemical jihad thing come from?

[Dilly Hussain]

It came from Tommy only.

[Peter McCormack]

What, he made it up or is it.

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, it started from Luton. It started from Luton. It started from what he observed. He believes that Muslim gangs in Luton and across the country are basically flooding Britain with drugs to basically do this chemical jad.

[Peter McCormack]

And it's just, I think drug dealers, just people. They're businessmen.

[Dilly Hussain]

They're businessmen. Money comes first, business talks. But just on this thing.

[Peter McCormack]

He's looking.

[Dilly Hussain]

This is just on this. On the Muslim grooming gangs thing. The reason why.

[Peter McCormack]

What's your source here? First, can we scroll up to the top? What websites is. I want to know first.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. What is this?

[Peter McCormack]

Medina.net Maryland. India.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay. India. Okay.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. But because there's a conflict here, right? Yeah. I mean I would want to know.

[Dilly Hussain]

If there's something that's credible.

[Peter McCormack]

Terrorist drug gans plan to flood the. But that's terrorist drug gangs.

[Dilly Hussain]

But no one ever talks about the fact that heroin trade was at its peak during the US invasion.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, they.

[Dilly Hussain]

And if.

[Peter McCormack]

And they protected the fields. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

And if we were going to accept the Iran contraband scandal where tons of cocaine was flooded to. To basically remove a communist regime in Nicaragua, if we accept that to be truth, why is it beyond the pale to understand that maybe the same was happening in Afghanistan? I've been to Afghanistan twice and they're burning poppy fields. They're giving farmers alternative halal Sharia compliant crops to grow. And when I went there, they said, look, you know, the US and NATO manned these poppy fields. The. The Afghan national army manned these fields and they. They had a very lucrative business here.

[Peter McCormack]

That's so weird.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

Back on the Pakistani rape gangs. Yeah. How difficult an experience has that been for the Muslim community, you know, people like yourself and your family and friends to go through. Yeah. Being such a massive story in the public eye.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you mind if we just kind of wrap up the Tommy thing? Because I don't want to. Yeah, yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

Wrap up the Tommy thing first. I'm going to come back to that, though.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay, cool.

[Peter McCormack]

I've got other questions on Tommy, but that's fine.

[Dilly Hussain]

The whole Tommy Bedford thing, I. Look, I think Peter, what it was, I think Muslims and many non Muslims just thought that Peter being someone from Bedford, what a pushback.

[Peter McCormack]

But like I say, I think I pushed back because I'm pretty sure we checked the transcripts. I said no, I think it's county lines or something like that. But you know, all I can do is go and interview him again and say, look, I see. Not that I'd seen. No, I just. There's no evidence of this and. And I actually think the more interesting question for him is why categorized by. Yeah, I think religion. And if he says chemical jihad, where. Where is the evidence?

[Dilly Hussain]

Thank you.

[Peter McCormack]

You know, show me that. But I also said, look, when people, you know what's really interesting on that, I had. I must had about 10 people say to me, look, I watched your Tommy interview, by the way. A lot of people actually enjoyed it, but also said, enjoyed it, but you know, you didn't do the top five. Well, yeah, but like I don't do them for the numbers. If I did it, look, all the ones I do that get 5,6000. Connor, do we know how accurate are we at predicting our numbers before we do a show? Pretty. Pretty good. I think this one will be. I think you'll do a hundred thousand. That's hops up. But. But we're pretty good and we still do shows that have got 5,6000.

[Dilly Hussain]

Some of the best shows I've ever done are the lovely numbers. One we don't need.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't need the numbers because I don't need the money. I do the conversations that I'm interested in. Tommy, I was really interested in doing the conversation, but. But people said to me this was really interesting and quite telling, said, oh, I really like the Tommy interview, but you didn't do a good job on the Queen's part thing. And I always asked him one question straight after I said, did your criticism come at the time when you watched the interview or because you saw somebody post something on Facebook? And they said, because I saw somebody post something on Facebook. So I said, so you didn't realize at the time that I should have pushed back harder? And they said no. And I said, well, sometimes that happens in an interview. Sometimes you're trying to process what they're saying, but sometimes you don't process. It's coming in one ear. You're thinking about your next question. You just go through an interview and I'm sure you've had criticism loads of. Well, you've had direct criticism of not being. Pushing back. Yeah, that happens. That happens sometimes. But I have no, like anyone who knows me, I've got no history of racism, I've got no history of issues with anyone in Bedford. Well, actually, maybe some of the lefties, but.

[Dilly Hussain]

And your women's team training Queen's park, right?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, my women's team training Queen's Park.

[Dilly Hussain]

Have they had any hassle?

[Peter McCormack]

No, no, none at all.

[Dilly Hussain]

In this epicenter of heroin trade in.

[Peter McCormack]

Bedford, I would happily go down to Queen's park, come down and see. I don't have any fear for myself. I. My whole childhood, I grew up. Well, I grew up in Kempston, but I went to Bedford Modern. Okay, so what way do you think I went to school for Queen's Park? I used to buy my cigarettes, but I used to go through there. I've played football in Queen's park myself in Allen Park. I know Queen's park very well.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay, all the more reason then. You should understand why many are upset then.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but what I'm saying to everybody is that if you've never done an interview, you have no idea what it's like in the situation. Situation. Not processing things. I'm going to get criticism for this interview.

[Dilly Hussain]

You definitely will.

[Peter McCormack]

People are going to go, you, he was telling you a one sided story of the history of Israel and Palestine. You should have pushed back on this. I do three interviews a week, every week and run five companies. It is impossible to know everything about everything. And sometimes when you're doing an interview, something just goes through you. But I am a. I'm a Bedford man. I support Bedford people and I support the town. And if I interview Tommy again, I'll. I'll push him harder and say, look, Tommy, but I. I think the two of us should do it together. All right, let's say, listen.

[Dilly Hussain]

Grooming gang. Grooming gangs.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, yeah. So I mean, how difficult has that been for you as a. Yeah. As a Muslim, to, to experience and go through.

[Dilly Hussain]

So look, I think.

[Peter McCormack]

Because that was also connected to religion, of course.

[Dilly Hussain]

And again, I think it's a very problematic framing because when you look at child sexual exploitation and child sex crimes, that type of depravity exists amongst all people.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

Irrespective of race or creed. It's just predatory behavior. And it manifests differently amongst different people.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So I have many friends and family who work within the social services and they say, look, whenever we deal with CSC within a white family construct, it's nearly always generational. The one perpetrating it has been a victim of that abuse themselves. Whereas when you see it taking place in different cultures or different faith groups, it manifests differently. But it's the same sexual predatory behavior.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

Now, with regards to the whole, initially began as Pakistani grooming gangs, now it's more Muslim grooming gangs. It's a term that's become very popularized and it's Kind of become synonymous, even with the migrant debate. It has, sadly. When you now talk.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, the crossover being is. I haven't heard it with the conversations regarding immigration being about Muslims. I've heard it about people coming to the country. We don't know who they are, who their track record is. And there have been incidents of people who've been housed in hotels and they've gone out and they committed sexual assault. It has happened, but I haven't seen that attributed to Muslims. I also think that the conversation has been predominantly Pakistani rape gangs and not Muslim rape gangs. I've heard people use the term. I'm not sure if I've used it myself.

[Dilly Hussain]

Tommy uses the term.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but, but it. That's Tommy. But my question isn't about Tommy in this. My question.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'm saying it's a very popularized term now. Muslim grooming gangs. Yes. It was initially Pakistani grooming gangs and now Muslim grooming gangs. It's become a very common term. And again, whether it's a lazy way to just categorize criminals who come from a particular faith group or to just say that, look.

[Peter McCormack]

But they were targeting young white girls. They weren't targeting Muslim or Pakistani girls. Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

So one thing I would posit to viewers and listeners is that if it wasn't white vulnerable girls at YMCAs and at housing shelters and outside and off license or in a park at night, if it was, let's say, black girls, Indian, Sikh girls, Muslim girls, that were vulnerable and available to these predators, these criminals, they would also attack them. And I'm very sure that. And they have. Actually, many of these sexual predators have also committed crimes against girls from other race groups. So what I would say is that when they have gone out and carried out those heinous crimes. And by the way, you're speaking to someone who believes in the capital punishment.

[Peter McCormack]

Okay.

[Dilly Hussain]

So I believe in the reinstatement of capital punishment. I believe in amputation. I believe in lashes.

[Peter McCormack]

Hold on, hold on. No, no, no, no. It's interesting because there was. There was one guy. There was a guy tweeting the other day. He was basically calling us a nation of pussies. He said, in the Arab world, if you do that, you're going to face a very harsh punishment. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

In the Muslim majority world for these types of crimes, especially if they were carried out by married men, it'll probably be capital punishment. And so therefore you don't. I don't need to be convinced about the seriousness of this crime. What I'm basically saying is that it should be zero tolerance to anyone who carries out these types of crimes. Now, as for the targeting of white, vulnerable girls, which was the case in Rochdale and Telford and Rotherham and many of these places, and if there was an institutional cover up by councillors, by local authorities, by police officers, I swear.

[Peter McCormack]

By God, if there was.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay, yeah. As in to conclude to be conclusively proven beyond reasonable doubt, heads should be rolling and dare I say, not even metaphorically here, in an ideal penal system, for my. For my moral faith view, they should be facing the harshest forms of punishment.

[Peter McCormack]

Get on with Rupert Lowe. Yeah, have you seen it?

[Dilly Hussain]

Rupert supports the reinstatement of capital punishment. So I don't need to be convinced or, you know, someone doesn't need to tell me about how serious this issue is.

[Peter McCormack]

Yes.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I believe in the most serious crime and the punishment for those crimes. Now, why these criminals went and did what they did in the way that they did boils down to a few number of things. First and foremost, these guys were not representatives of the faith. If anything, they were the worst representatives of the faith. And in fact, what they did was entirely un Islamic. These perpetrators in Rotherham, in Telford, in Oldham, in other parts of the north and the Midlands, they were not devout religious men. They did not come from madrasas and mosques. They were not scholars or activists. Some of these were in the nighttime trade. Some of them were drug dealers. Some of them were already inclined towards the criminal world. There were various methods applied by these criminals. They used the lover boy method. They basically love bomb a young girl, you know, treat her with the most basic of things like food and stuff like that, and then basically laced them with drugs and alcohol and passed them around in a very organized way. Right. Did they target them because they were white? I would say that they target them because they were available.

[Connor]

So there's no correlation.

[Dilly Hussain]

I would say that because the white girls were available in that particular context, they did what they did. And I believe that if they were girls from any other race that were that vulnerable and that available to abuse, they'd do the same.

[Peter McCormack]

This episode is brought to you by Ledger, the most trusted Bitcoin hardware wallet. Now, if you're serious about protecting your bitcoin, Ledger has the solution you need. Their hardware wallet gives you complete control over your private keys, ensuring that your bitcoin stays safe from hacks, phishing and malware. And I've been a customer of there since 2017. Love the product. Use it for my bitcoin, I use it with my Castle multisig for protecting the football club bitcoin too. Now, with Ledger's sleek, easy to use devices and the Ledger Live app, managing your Bitcoin has never been more secure or convenient. And whether you're a longtime holder or new to the world of bitcoin, Ledger makes it simple to keep your assets protected. So if you want to find out more, please do head over to ledger.com and secure your Bitcoin today. That is ledger.com which is L E D G E R dot com. That is ledger.com so the accusations that they targeted them because they see white young British girls as less than a Muslim.

[Dilly Hussain]

I can't accept that, man. I mean if that's what the criminals believe, then that's their distorted views. That's if that's what have they said.

[Peter McCormack]

That I think that accusation is out there.

[Dilly Hussain]

Can you check if any of the perpetrators said in their criminal defamation?

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know what. I don't think I would trust anything they would say anyway.

[Dilly Hussain]

So where would we get that from?

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know. I don't know.

[Dilly Hussain]

Because. Because for them to say we target them because they were white, which means that they would have to articulate that as a motivation in some place or form.

[Connor]

There's defo a correlation between the amount that happened and the proportion of white compared to non white.

[Dilly Hussain]

For sure. But one thing.

[Peter McCormack]

So why.

[Connor]

Yeah, so why.

[Dilly Hussain]

Exactly.

[Peter McCormack]

Fair question.

[Dilly Hussain]

And this is a very. And I'm glad you asked this nephew, because it's an. It's one at the core of the argument. Why were the victims disproportionately white? Why were the victims disproportionately available in these places? Why did they make. So we need to now talk about this.

[Connor]

And also why were the perpetrators disproportionately Muslim?

[Dilly Hussain]

Disproportionately Muslim and possibly Pakistani and Muslim in certain towns and cities.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure. Yes. Yeah, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So we need to be fair here. So let's also make no mistake that the vast majority of child sexual exploitation crimes are committed by white men.

[Peter McCormack]

Is that a per capita.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no. So even if you look at the per capita, remember there's no conclusive data here. And I've written in that because I knew. If you can look into this, we have four bits of data available. We have data from. It's two sex. We have the home office data from 2020, we have the CSA center who basically said that 88% of CSC crimes are done by white men whilst making up 82% of the population. But they themselves said that that Was not an accurate reflection.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, weren't they. They weren't collecting the data, though, at some point. That was one of the problems.

[Dilly Hussain]

We need to collect the data.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, in.

[Dilly Hussain]

The absence of data, we can't make these, like, conclusions, like, so outright.

[Peter McCormack]

No, but, but they. Yes, okay, look, there are gangs of white, White gangs who are perpetrating sex crimes on young people. Pedophile gangs, rape gangs. We know that exists. But one of the issues with the data originally is they weren't collecting data. They weren't collecting racial data, they weren't collecting religious data. So that was one of the issues, is that they weren't. But.

[Dilly Hussain]

So in the absence of that data, would it be fair to make such conclusions?

[Peter McCormack]

Well, so, but that was. Sorry, just to go back. That was one of the, one of the findings in one of the inquiries. Yeah, they weren't collecting that data. There was a fear of collecting that data for.

[Dilly Hussain]

For being perceived as racist.

[Peter McCormack]

For being perceived as racist.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I think. I think that data should be collected. Yeah, but I think that data should be collected and we should draw correlations and causations between, if there are any. What I'm saying, however, is that child sexual predatory behavior exists in all types of people.

[Peter McCormack]

Of course. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

It manifests itself in different shapes and forms depending on culture and religion and demographics and so forth. When you take, let's say if we take five cities, Rochdale, Telford, Rotherham, Oldham, and maybe another, another major of the five northern cities or towns where, where it took place. These towns and cities already have a high population of Pakistani Muslim males. So. So when you take data of that crime from those towns and cities, it doesn't come as a surprise that there would be a per capita over representation. But if you were to have conclusive data across the country, the breadth of the country, that would give a more accurate depiction of.

[Peter McCormack]

Does it exist? Got to look. He'll find it.

[Dilly Hussain]

I don't think it does. That's why Louise Casey, she presented that in her last review. That look, in the absence of this data, it's hard to draw such conclusions. She said, however, in towns and cities where it took place, yes, per capita there was over representation.

[Peter McCormack]

But what do you think has gone on there?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think these are sexual predators, opportunists who saw young vulnerable kids that they could sexually abuse and make money from. And I firmly believe that if it was any other racial group of girls that were in that vulnerable position and were so easily accessible and they would have done the same.

[Connor]

You also have to ask though, with the lack of that data, why was this happening in Rochdale, Oldham, with these large Pakistani communities and not Fulham or Chelsea? But there's got to be some correlation there.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, so.

[Dilly Hussain]

So what I'm basically saying is that. So child sexual exploitation manifests itself differently between different cultures. So how it would manifest in Fulham or Chelsea would look very different to how we'd manifest in Rochdale.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Because like you said, you know, in fuller Chelsea, it might be historical, it.

[Dilly Hussain]

Might be generational, it might be, it might be in the context of gangs or country lines. It may take place in different ways, but in the case of some of the northern cities and towns where it did take place, that's how it manifested itself.

[Peter McCormack]

Do we know why?

[Dilly Hussain]

Look, these guys are criminals and we have to not lose sight of that, that they are criminals, sexual predators. Some of them were married, had kids.

[Peter McCormack]

Same age, some were leading members of their local community.

[Dilly Hussain]

Some of them were. There were police officers involved. I've heard there were police officers involved, some have been caught and they're going to be more that are going to be found out. So this sounds like a huge problem. And at the core of it, we have to understand what motivated these guys to do what they did. If the argument is that white girls are easy and less than Muslims and therefore easy targets, how do you prove that?

[Peter McCormack]

You prob. You even, even with. And if that was, they're not going to give that in testimony.

[Dilly Hussain]

And there's 4 million Muslims in the UK, that's like 4 million citizens. Muslim citizens of the UK. If that was such a predominant type of thinking, I think we'd have a huge problem in the uk. The fact that it was happening in certain towns and cities, the fact that it was happening within certain particular contexts. When you look at the Labour Party, the local authority, those type of COVID ups and those type of institutional cover ups, if it can be proven. But from what I'm hearing that in some cases there were, in some cases there were. I just find it difficult to put a religious motivation or a marker on crimes unless it's explicitly said, unless one of these groomers or their lawyers or they've written it or they text each other or there was some type of correspondence to say this ghori, which means white girl, white, you know, is X, Y and Z or this kafir which means a non Muslim or kafirah. If we have this type of evidence then we could say, okay, so these guys had a distorted understanding of the religion which basically justified what they did, what they Did. But I'm yet to hear a single one of those criminals say that. Oh, by the way, my religion said this is okay. By the way, my religion said this is okay. Because we can take non Muslim girls as concubines or because the Prophet married Maisha at this age. In the absence of them saying that, I think it's unequivocally unjust to put a religious marker. Also we need to understand that when.

[Peter McCormack]

It happened with the Yasidi sex slaves, with isis. Yeah. What, what was the background to that?

[Dilly Hussain]

Obviously ISIS being a nihilistic death cult. They adopted obviously a pre modern understanding that any conquered nation or land, their women and children are taken as slaves, which is something pretty normal.

[Peter McCormack]

But it's a radical interpretation.

[Dilly Hussain]

It would be radical in today's times. Of course it would be right. Because you don't, you don't conquer nations like that. You don't enslave their women and children like that. But it was very normal 150 years ago, 200 years ago, the Europeans did it, the Muslims did it, everyone did it. To conquer a land and take children as women and children as slaves, that was pretty normal.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

To do that in 2014 is obviously very shocking and that they took those pre modern interpretations implemented on the Yazidi people.

[Peter McCormack]

So that's, that's one of my errors I wanted to ask you about. I've not read the Quran, but there seems one of the, one of the challenges across, you know, Islam is the interpretation of the Quran. There are different ways it's been interpreted, different people, different scholars. How much is that, how much of a challenge do you think that is? Because there are radical interpretations and then there are more progressive interpretations. Everything in the Middle.

[Dilly Hussain]

Islam hasn't undergone the type of reformation that Judaism and Christianity has. It hasn't gone through that process of reformation where they kind of abandon a level of orthodoxy and dogma or whatever it may be.

[Peter McCormack]

Do we need a new Quran?

[Dilly Hussain]

No, we don't. I think the Quran now as, as the untampered from white, from an Islamic person, that untampered untouched word of God. I think it's perfectly from now until the end of times.

[Peter McCormack]

But then how do people have such radical interpretations?

[Dilly Hussain]

Because people can interpret things in many different ways. I mean to single out the Quran for violent verses, by the way, when Old Testament.

[Peter McCormack]

No, no, we've done this, we've done the research, we've looked at the Old.

[Dilly Hussain]

Testament, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Torah, the Talmud are actually significantly more violent than the Quran.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know if they are, but.

[Dilly Hussain]

What I'm saying is if you were to talk about the number of verses and the number of chapters pertaining to war and what you do with prisoners of war and how you treat them and concubines and slaveries and all that type of stuff, all the Abrahamic scriptures have that. What I'm saying is that in the Quran, whenever those things are mentioned, they are mentioned in a very specific context, and that context is war. So when Allah says in the Quran, fight them wherever you see them or fight them the way they fight you. Allah is specifically talking about when you're in a state of war or when someone is trying to drive you out of your homes, or when someone's trying to expel you from your homes. There's very specific juristic context as to how those verses should be applied and understood, for example.

[Peter McCormack]

But not everyone interprets in that way, of course.

[Dilly Hussain]

But that's, that's generally with religious texts.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure, but what is the downstream consequence of that? Yeah, we have had, we've had terrorism in the UK from people with their radical interpretation of Islam. Yeah, help me understand that. Help me understand what that is like as a Muslim living alongside that, that people do have a radical interpretation that leads to radical acts being perpetrated on the British people. And how, how you as a, as a Muslim have to deal with that.

[Dilly Hussain]

I have to deal with from the perspective that before people start looking into Quranic passages that are cited by Muhammad Siddiq Khan, the bomb of the 77, or Michael Abdul Balaja from Mullich, is that we tend to immediately focus on what they said about the Quran, but not actually focus on what they said beforehand. Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the main perpetrator behind the seven, seven bombings before he went into the religious citations, he explicitly mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq. If you look at those two specific, those two specific wars which Britain was directly involved in, we fought the Taliban. They're now in power. There were no WMDs, there was no Al Qaeda hiding in Iraq, but there was an ISIS born after the US invasion. So whether those wars can be seen as victories or something that was justified is hugely debatable. Right, is in.

[Peter McCormack]

Is Iraq really debatable?

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, I'm just, I'm just, I'm trying to be as fair minded for your audience as possible.

[Peter McCormack]

I know, I know. I actually think you're being unfair minded there, because I think as a nation, a million people protesting, did Alisa Campbell put together a dodgy dossier?

[Dilly Hussain]

They need to be in the Hague, they're war criminals.

[Peter McCormack]

They are war criminals. I don't. I think there are people I'm asking.

[Dilly Hussain]

Rhetorically, as Brits, we need to ask ourselves, was Afghanistan and Iraq a successful campaign for us? Has it caused less issues or more issues? Baroness Manningham Buller, former chief of the MI5, told Tony Blair, do not go into Iraq because there's going to be a blowback of domestic terrorism. If you go there, chickens are going to come home to roost. Sir Peter Fahey, former counter extremism chief of Great Manchester Police, echoed the same thing. Dal Babu, former superintendent of the London Met, said the same thing. If we go into Iraq, we're going to start bombing people and civilians are going to be killed. It's going to radicalize Muslims in the west and someone's going to do something crazy. It just takes one, just takes a handful. And lo and behold, Muhammad Sadiq Khan said it before when he done his. The video, the message. He said, you're doing this to our Muslim brothers and sisters. You're killing us in Iraq. You're kidding us in Afghanistan. We're going to bring the terror to your streets. Literally did what Baroness Manningham Buller said would happen. Michael Abdoubolajo, when he carried out that murder against Lee Rigby, what did he say? He said, you're doing this whilst waving the knife. You're doing this to our brothers and sisters in Yemen and in Somalia and in Iraq and Afghanistan. And therefore Allah says in the Quran. You notice how he gave the actual grievance and then he mentioned the text. So when we look at these types of politically motivated violence, this act of terrorism, I think it's very lazy and.

[Peter McCormack]

Easy to just political and religious motivation.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, political motivated violence, of course, political. But remember, for many, political religion is kind of the same thing. Many don't make that distinction. What I'm saying is that they've made. They've articulated their grievance very clearly. We are doing this because Britain is doing X, Y and Z. That's why we have to look. Pre 9, 11, did we have a domestic Islamist terrorist threat? Pre 9, 11?

[Peter McCormack]

No.

[Dilly Hussain]

Pre Afghanistan, no. Pre. Pre Iran.

[Peter McCormack]

I know this.

[Dilly Hussain]

So. So. So there's a clear causation or at least a correlation between Britain's foreign policy and what it gets up to in the Muslim majority world and the type of blowback that it has. And these guys who then go on to perpetrate these crimes, they've obviously justified it in their minds that Allah says fight them the way they fight you, they'll take certain Quranic verses and passages in the context of war and they'll apply it to their countries of residence where there is no war.

[Peter McCormack]

So do you think it's justified?

[Dilly Hussain]

No, of course not. I'm saying the complete opposite. I'm saying that they've but their true motivation, it's not that it is a religious war. That is what basically gave them the comfort to go and do what they did. They're telling you why they're doing what they did. We're doing this because we feel an affinity with our core religionists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We see them as our fellow Muslim brethren. We see this country as our country of residence. But this army is going and killing my brothers and sisters. And therefore, because you're giving Muslims a hard time and creating death and destruction there, we're going to bring some of this back into here as a revenge, as vengeance. Then they go and cite the religious justification, the chronic passage to basically justify the killing of Lee Rigby, the bombing of civilians on buses and trains, which is never justified. That could be my mom, your sister, that could be anyone. So I think anyone can use texts. You know, we heard so many religious rhetoric from Israeli officials and diplomats talking about Amalek, talking about wiping out, you know, the Amalekites, even Netanyahu used that term. So people can use religious texts and scripture to justify their crimes. I think what needs to be understood is why they committing the crimes in the first place. And if we saw that there was no domestic Islamist threat, homegrown Islamist threat, prior 9, 11, prior 77 prior Afghanistan and Iraq, I think that would be a more important conversation to be had. And I think that's actually linked to the, the immigration issue as well. Where do what, why, why are fighting aged men coming to this country?

[Peter McCormack]

Well, so I have an answer that some people don't actually realize because I've been into a refugee camp. So which, which, so I went into on the border of Turkey and Greece.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay.

[Peter McCormack]

When, when essentially Turkey was trying to expel because there's so many refugees coming to the country because it's a gateway to Europe. And so they started to expel people. They'll bust them to the border. And the Greeks closed down the border. I went right, I went right to the conflict. I met people from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea. It was predominantly young men.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yep.

[Peter McCormack]

And I asked why and they explained to me, well, it's a long, tough and difficult journey. I'm going to go and set up base and then I'm going to Bring my family over. That's why you have predominantly young, they say fighting aged men, it's young men because this is a tough journey.

[Dilly Hussain]

Thank you very much. It's the reason why he's fighting aged men because non fighting aged men and women can't make that journey.

[Peter McCormack]

It's like if we move house, me and Connor are going to get up early, we're going to load up the van and go and move everything and then we'll go and pick up my daughter later. It's just, that's the role of a man, to just go and set up home. I get that. Why have so many people come over? I think there's a range of reasons.

[Dilly Hussain]

So let's look at the top five countries. Afghanistan, small bots, small boats. Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Syria, Sudan. Let's put Eritrea aside. I don't know much about the politics of Eritrea, but I do know a fair amount of Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Sudan. All four countries have one or two things as a common denominator. War and or sanctions. Right now, whether you're a fighting age man, an able bodied man or a disabled man or wherever it is, no one wants to live under those circumstances. No one wants. Every human being, every father, every son, every, every brother, every husband, white, black or brown, irrelevant of the faith, want the best for their family.

[Peter McCormack]

I think even the most ardently against the levels of immigration we have would also say, oh, in the same position, I would do the same. I want the best of my family, I want to go and live in a good country with opportunity.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's standard. They're not necessarily coming here for the liberalism, they're not coming here for the secularism, they're not coming for the freedoms. They're coming just because they just want a better life and for money.

[Peter McCormack]

It's primarily a bit of freedom, some of them.

[Dilly Hussain]

But if you speak to most of them, it's money.

[Peter McCormack]

They just want a better opportunity.

[Dilly Hussain]

Opportunity, access to education, some type of opportunity, some type of financial stability, something that's not there. But if you also look at those four countries, Peter, what do they all have in common? Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Sudan. They have wars in common. They have things which have been directly impacted by British foreign policy.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

So I think the root cause can be addressed with regards to immigration is if we have a more non interventionist foreign policy.

[Peter McCormack]

But again, I mean, you won't get any, you won't get me argue against that. I mean, like I say, this country did not want a second Iraq war. It was not wanted, it was Unpopular. It was based on lies. We had the largest protests in the streets. The people who sent us into that war have never been held accountable and still paraded as legitimate people. Alistair Campbell, whilst he has his rants on Twitter about everything, is paraded by many as a legitimate person. He, to me, see, this was another interesting point. When I did the Tommy interview, there were some people more on the left who were disappointed, and I would say, is Tony Blair a legitimate interview? And they would say, yes. I say, well, I think Tony Blair has committed more heinous crimes on this world and on Muslim nations. Anywhere near what Tommy Robinson. You think Tommy Robinson has done. So why is he a legitimate investigation interview and Tommy isn't?

[Dilly Hussain]

I mean, Tony Blair still advising governments? He was. He was just recently with Trump, trying to advise him on what to do in ID cards and ID cards and stuff, you know, Hardly.

[Peter McCormack]

Look, he did it. Look, I. I will give him credit. He did a good job with Northern Ireland. I will hand it to him. He did a good job negotiating, helping get into a more peaceful situation there. But I don't think it should ever be forgotten that he took us into an illegal war that nobody wanted to go and nobody wanted it.

[Dilly Hussain]

And it was all based on and created the immigration issue, stabilized the whole region.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So now if we look at that, right, if we look at the first wave of Albanians that came was after the Kosovan Albania war. The first wave of Afghans that came in large numbers was after the invasion of Afghanistan. The large number of Kurds that came from Iraq was after the 2003 invasion. So we see that there is a direct correlation and possibly a causation between destabilizing regions, placing sanctions on them, making them live under very horrible situations. I think any human being would want to make any perilous journey and whether that means staying in a hotel and being given three meals a day, £7 a week. Maybe not PS5s and smartphones, but wherever it is, I'll be happy for people to be protesting outside and people calling me a Paki or a Muslim terrorist. Anything's better than having to survive in the situation.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't think most people would disagree with you on that. I think, like I say, most every one of us wants the best for us and the best for our family. And if I got fed up with England, which I'm a little bit. But I will come to that, because I think that was the most interesting thing Tommy actually said, is that you hear me talk about Islam more, less and more about the Government. I think he's realized who the problem really is. If I got fed up in this country and I wanted to go and live in America, I'd just go. Want to go and live in France, I would just go. If I wanted to go and live in Sweden, I'd just go. If I want to go and live in Australia, I would just go. I would just get up and go.

[Dilly Hussain]

Brits are going to Dubai and settling there and they're going to all different parts of.

[Peter McCormack]

The irony of that in some ways. And so I think some of that's been lost in the discussion. But I also think there's legitimate complaints in that the levels of immigration we're having and what the impact on the economy and public service is, is a valid and legitimate conversation to have. I think we should be. Be having that. And it's that tricky situation because we all, you know, all pretty much agree we would do in the same situation, yet when we're the other side of the fence, we don't want it.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, I agree, I agree. But we have an aging population, Peter, and you have a young population that's not having kids.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, do you know my biggest argument?

[Dilly Hussain]

So how do we fill the labor market? Who do we tax? Because we know that old people, as loving and caring as they are, and we love them to bits, you know, they, and I hate to even use these crude terms, they are seen as a strain on the services. They give less and they require more.

[Peter McCormack]

That's why they want to kill off the old people.

[Dilly Hussain]

And that's why 97. Why is 97.5% of elderly in all care homes white? If you look at per capita, that's bonkers. It's because there's an aging population and a young population that's not having kids.

[Peter McCormack]

And part of a young population isn't even working.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's not even working. The current birth rate in the UK is 1.41. That birth rate includes non whites as well. If we were to take the non whites out of that, the birth rate for the white Brit is somewhere between 0.9 to 1.1.

[Peter McCormack]

Are you holding us up, then?

[Dilly Hussain]

We're trying to hold us up. No, but we need to incentivise and revive people being mums again.

[Peter McCormack]

Oh, God. I mean, that's a whole bigger conversation about. About, you know, relationships and marriage and settling. Having kids is. The society has changed, like, fundamentally. I mean, it might be different. It might be different within, you know, different communities, you know, but, but.

[Dilly Hussain]

And Brexiteers. What did Brexiteers think was going to happen after Brexit, of course relations of the Commonwealth was going to be increasingly strengthened. So is it any surprise that Indians make up the largest number of legal migrants?

[Peter McCormack]

Look, you and I probably agree on a lot with regards to government. We come back to that. But let's, let's, let's keep with the Tommy thing in respect to Tommy because he does have a loud voice now and a lot of people following him. Does he hold up a mirror on legitimate things that should and could be discussed that you think are there any legitimate areas to discuss with regards to Muslims or Islam?

[Dilly Hussain]

Look, I think one of Tommy's main issue, from my perspective, from the perspective of many Muslims and those maybe non Muslims who disagree with them, find during a divisive figure, whether they see him as an Islamophobe or a racist or whatever it is, is that he can have those very same conversations but in a very different way.

[Peter McCormack]

That's not the question I asked though. Just, just out of interest.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no, but it does matter because if you want to raise a genuine issue with the Muslim community, like for example, why is it that in particular towns and cities there are groups of men from this community that are carrying out these crimes? I believe the best way to have that conversation is to have it with assertiveness, but with respect and decorum. If you're going to go in straight away and say your prophet is a pedoillah, your prophet is a pedo, X, Y and Z, ra, ra ra. There's going to be no conversation. No, I think there's a couple of things which he should, I think are genuine, which is to do with the ruling elite. I don't think. I think the core problem are those who rule over us, those who make decisions about where we should wage wars and who we should sell weapons to and which despotic regime we're going to support and those multi billionaire corporations that actually benefit from the type of immigration that we're seeing because quite frankly they don't care if a black, brown or white. So they care about profit.

[Peter McCormack]

Uber came out this week, didn't they? And said it. You can find that tweet I put out con. I retweeted them, I said pay people more. Yeah, I mean their business models are broken. That's the problem. Their business models are broken. But so it's still not answered the question though, just, is there anything he discusses that you think that's fair? We should have that discussion.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think that if there was an institutional cover up of these crimes in some of these towns and cities. That is a conversation we should be having for sure.

[Peter McCormack]

Here you go. Illegal migrant crackdown risks pushing up takeaway prices.

[Dilly Hussain]

There you go.

[Peter McCormack]

One's Uber.

[Dilly Hussain]

So who benefits from that?

[Peter McCormack]

Undocumented workers drawn to food delivery industry to earn. I mean, it just means their business, by the way, their business model is broken. They've just. Takeaway food used to be good because it used to be delivered by somebody works at the takeaway company who would come in their car and deliver it. Now you've got old.

[Dilly Hussain]

Sorry, old school way.

[Peter McCormack]

Old school way. And now you've got like, if I order myself a curry from Blue Ginger and Kempson, is it still there?

[Dilly Hussain]

It's still there.

[Peter McCormack]

Good curry that if I order from there and a guy brings it on a bike, by the time he gets to him, it's cold and it's ruined. Okay. But it used to be a guy in a car and you get it when it would be warm. And. And also the amount of money they charge, they pushed up the rates. I don't remember if you remember it, but you see a delivery driver turn up, you'd give them a fiver as like a tip.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's because a lot more people are eating takeaways.

[Peter McCormack]

They are. But what we have is that we should go back to ordering direct, not through these apps, order indirect. That more of the money will go to the company and. And the food will be a higher quality when you eat it.

[Dilly Hussain]

Try to convince someone who's starving and hungry and want to eat.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

Ultimately it comes back to your individual gratification. I want something quick, I want it now, and I want it the cheapest.

[Peter McCormack]

I think we're going to see a rejection of that. I think. I think, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think it's a consumer demand anyway.

[Peter McCormack]

So you said the institutional cover up is still not the question I really ask.

[Dilly Hussain]

You said, are there any genuine things that you can raise.

[Peter McCormack]

He talks a lot about Islam and Muslims. Is there anything within their.

[Dilly Hussain]

I don't take anything Tommy says about Islam seriously.

[Peter McCormack]

So are there. Outsider Tommy, are there. Do you. When you look inwards Islam, do you think there are any areas that we as a nation should be debating? For example, let's. I mean, I don't know anything about Sharia law, but I have read there's 74 Sharia courts in the UK. Is that something that we should be. Should be having? A lot of people say, no, the law of this nation should be the law of this nation. Is that an error? We should Be discussing.

[Dilly Hussain]

But in the same way that the Sharia councils, there's Jewish councils and Hindu councils and Sikh councils.

[Peter McCormack]

Let's bring them all together. I don't like the fact that there.

[Dilly Hussain]

Has to be one rule for everyone.

[Peter McCormack]

Oh, no, I agree. It's like with the blasphemy laws that they are essentially Islamophobia laws. They're not blasphemy laws. It blew my mind when I read the blasphemy laws. It was only with regards to Islam. If you got. Firstly, I don't think you should have blasphemy laws, but if you are, it should at least cover every religion.

[Dilly Hussain]

So we'll get to the blasphemy law. Let's just talk about the Sharia council. So there's 73 Sharia councils. What do these Sharia councils mainly deal with? They deal with marriages, mediation, inheritance issues. They'll be dealing with internal community issues stuff which the Jews have their own versions of it, the Sikhs have their own versions of it, the Hindus have their own versions of it. The reason why these type of councils and courts exist is because the type of mediation that's required for people who follow their religion devoutly, a secular judicial system doesn't intervene on a dispute between a brother and a sister. When it comes to inheritance, that's not been distributed the way British law would, because Islamic law would have its own inheritance laws and other faith groups and the Jews would have their own types of laws.

[Peter McCormack]

But should we allow that? I mean, should we just have a single law of the land? If you live in the uk, inheritance laws are the UK inheritance laws. There shouldn't be Sikh inheritance laws, there shouldn't be Sharia inheritance laws. Should we just have one rule of the nation and keep to that?

[Dilly Hussain]

How can. But then that means the state is now dictating to individuals how they should distribute their inheritance.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, but it is. If you're a farmer, it is dictating that. So why should there be separate rules if you're in a different religion?

[Dilly Hussain]

If you pass, like when you write up your will.

[Peter McCormack]

Yes.

[Dilly Hussain]

No one has a say about how you distribute, how you do that.

[Peter McCormack]

Right, sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. So it's no different to how the state has absolute zero say in how you decide to distribute your.

[Peter McCormack]

It does. Huh?

[Connor]

It does because it takes part of it as tax.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. It would do the same with the Muslim persons. So the tax would happen regardless. Muslim, non, Muslim, Sharia, Sikh, whatever.

[Connor]

But that is dictating how you split it.

[Peter McCormack]

But also if I.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's to do with inheritance Tax.

[Peter McCormack]

If I write, everyone has to pay.

[Dilly Hussain]

Inheritance tax, whether you're Muslim or non Muslim. What I'm saying about how much you decide this child gets. This child gets. That's. That's okay.

[Peter McCormack]

So we have a will.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And if we don't have a will. If they can't find a will. Yeah. Then there's specific laws about how that is distributed amongst siblings that exist.

[Dilly Hussain]

That standard.

[Peter McCormack]

Shouldn't that be the same for everyone? Shouldn't that be the same?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think people should decide how they. How they want to dictate their wills and the inheritance.

[Peter McCormack]

I agree. Yeah. I think mine should go entirely to my children if I wanted to, without any tax, any theft from the government. What I'm saying is we have a framework of laws. Should we. Not all in this country follow the same framework of laws?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think everyone does. I don't think those. I'm interested to know, what do those Sharia councillors do exactly?

[Peter McCormack]

You tell me.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's what I'm trying to say. As far as I'm aware, they're dealing with marital stuff, marital abuse. If a husband and wife are arguing, they're considering divorce, they're discussing childcare arrangements, they're looking to mediate and reconcile. They're having issues spiritually. Counseling services.

[Peter McCormack]

There's a mediation.

[Dilly Hussain]

Exactly. I want to know where in any example, nephew, you can find this, please. If there is any example.

[Peter McCormack]

Why do you keep calling nephew?

[Dilly Hussain]

Because, from our tradition. Because we're like similar ages. So he's your son. We call him a nephew. Yeah.

[Connor]

It's all right, Unc.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's cool. It's cool with all my look. I've got my hair gelled up. I didn't have jelly. I'm all white. I'm more gray than your dad. I'm not aware of any instance where any ruling or judgment of a Sharia council has basically juxtaposed any type of British legal ruling. And the reason why that's never happened is because they're dealing with stuff which a secular state doesn't intervene in.

[Peter McCormack]

You should look that up, see if there is any precedent set for me.

[Connor]

We saw recently the job application from the council, which was obviously going to be paid for through the taxpayer money. Do you think that's right? Should the British people.

[Dilly Hussain]

What was that wrong?

[Peter McCormack]

He was an expert on Sharia.

[Connor]

Yeah, it was a Sharia law administrator.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay. For who? And what was the job?

[Connor]

If Some council position, I think.

[Dilly Hussain]

Was it Sharia council? Was it a government job?

[Peter McCormack]

It was a government.

[Connor]

It was a government job. Should the taxpayer be paying for the. Do they have Muslim religion?

[Dilly Hussain]

Do they have.

[Peter McCormack]

So.

[Dilly Hussain]

So again, we have to understand it. Was it. Do they have similar positions for like, Sikhs and Jews chaplaincies? Sorry, sorry. Do they have similar positions for like, Jewish equivalence? I'm a very. I'm assuming they probably will. In most cases they do because you need someone who understands the faith to fulfill that position. Now, if they exclusively just made that position for Muslims, potentially I can understand why there'd be frustrations, but I have a feeling if it was a government position that they'd have the same position for other faiths.

[Peter McCormack]

Again, we can. We can try and fact check that if you can, but Sharia law is the predominant law of Islamic countries, right? No, it's not.

[Dilly Hussain]

No.

[Peter McCormack]

So how is Sharia? So what is the law of a. Give me an example of a. Of a. I don't know. Bangladesh. That's where your family's from? Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

Bangladesh is a secular nation state.

[Peter McCormack]

Okay.

[Dilly Hussain]

Its constitution was fundamentally what was kind of left after the British left and then after the. The civil. The war of independence with West Pakistan. So Bangladesh used to be west, used to be East Pakistan. It's a secular. Secular law. There's nothing that's Sharia within the constitution. The only thing in the Bangladeshi constitution, it says that the state religion is Islam, which basically means a demographic acknowledgment of the people that the majority of the people of Bangladesh are Muslim.

[Peter McCormack]

Could a Christian become the Prime Minister of Bangladesh?

[Dilly Hussain]

I'm not sure. I'd have to look into that. Yeah, I know there's many other Muslim countries. They wouldn't be able to.

[Peter McCormack]

They don't like, say Pakistan doesn't. Here we go. Sharia law administrator. Crap pay, very crap pay. 23 and a half grand. You get more benefits.

[Dilly Hussain]

And this is a government job, right? No, it's a community center. It's a community center.

[Connor]

The Department of Work and Pensions.

[Dilly Hussain]

Department for Work and Pensions.

[Connor]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So this was a job that they advertised for someone to sign up to. I'd be very curious why a non Muslim would apply for a Sharia law administrator.

[Peter McCormack]

I doubt they are.

[Dilly Hussain]

Exactly. So. So obviously it's a Sharia law administrator for a community side, which I'm assuming is probably Muslim majority. It's a Muslim community center. Islamic center. So that would. So. So the equivalent of that would be a Torah law administrator for a Jewish community center in Prestwich Speech or East Finchley. Unless this is a government position, then I can understand the concerns. But I think this was A job that was advertised at the job center for DWP and the Sharia law administrator for Muslim Community Center. So I think the Muslim community, the Manchester Community center would probably have to, I'm assuming, would probably have to be an Islamic center or an Islamic center that's named as Muslim community. Otherwise why would you need a Sharia law administrator in central or local government? I would, I, I wouldn't understand.

[Peter McCormack]

I'd like to know in these Sharia courts, kind of if, if they've ever adjudicated on something that is in contradiction with British law.

[Dilly Hussain]

Let me give you an example. Me and my wife were married, happily married. And what was that? I mean, all praise be to God. We're married, two beautiful girls. If anything happened between us. Oh, by the way, we're not registered married. We've not registered.

[Peter McCormack]

You're not legally married.

[Dilly Hussain]

There you go.

[Peter McCormack]

So legally married by British law. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

We would, we would constitute as. What is cohabitating.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

But under Sharia law, we're married.

[Peter McCormack]

Right. Okay.

[Dilly Hussain]

Now, whenever we fill up applications and forms, I always say I'm married. I always say I'm married. So when they get the census data together, I want my, the representation of me and my family, my household to be that of a married family unit. But I've not registered my marriage.

[Peter McCormack]

Do you have a will?

[Dilly Hussain]

Do I have a will?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Yes, because if you didn't have a.

[Dilly Hussain]

Will, there's, I know there's a technical. There's a lot. It's a longer process and it could be financially problematic as well, because we're not. But those things can be resolved closer to the time. But the reason why I've not registered my marriage is because I feel that the judicial system in the UK disproportionately favors women and mothers in, in times of separation. Divorces.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, I could have done with that divorce as well.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think the judicial system naturally leans towards sympathizing and disproportionately favoring mothers. And I also have my own personal position with regards to what a mother or a wife should be entitled to in the case of a divorce.

[Peter McCormack]

It's funny, we keep coming back to the problem being our own, the government, the state, the judiciary.

[Dilly Hussain]

So now if me and my wife are having issues. Yeah, we have embalmes. There's, there's, there's issues within the marriage. Would I go to a secular non Muslim shrink or would I go to my local imam? A local Sharia council. I go to my local Sharia council. I'll tell you why? Because that non Muslim council will be working within a secular framework that for whatever reason will not necessarily factor in understand the very distinct context of a Muslim marriage. Right. And the, the roles and the expectations between a man and a wife within the Islamic context. So it makes absolute sense why I would go to my local Sharia council or my local mosque or my local imam since my marriage is not registered. The way Islamic divorce takes place is that you utter divorce three times and the divorce is done.

[Peter McCormack]

That's so much easier.

[Dilly Hussain]

It is.

[Peter McCormack]

I think, I think we should adopt Sharia law now. So like next time I get married.

[Dilly Hussain]

So if we say, if you say, if you say Talaq, Talaq, Talaq. Divorce, divorce, divorce, the divorce is done. But before that's happened.

[Peter McCormack]

Hold on, in what context? Because you've just said it now. Are you now divorced?

[Dilly Hussain]

Not to you. No, it might be to you.

[Peter McCormack]

You have to say it to you.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, I have to say it to her.

[Peter McCormack]

So now do you ever get in a situation where, you know you've fallen out, you say it twice and just test her.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's a serious thing. I would never mess about with that man. I would never mess about with that. But though in a Sharia law, a husband's temper and his mental state would be fact would be taken into consideration at the time of him uttering that.

[Peter McCormack]

When I went out to Malawi, we went out to this village where they had a bitcoin mine to provide electricity to the village. And I met the tribal leader of the village.

[Dilly Hussain]

Christian or Muslim?

[Peter McCormack]

Do you know what? I don't even know. It never came up. Religion didn't come up. It was just a village. We met the tribal leader and he explained his job to me. What was it, what his job is to do? And it is to mediate disputes in the village. And I was like, that's kind of interesting in some ways, yes, any individual can be corrupted, but we have a corrupted state that incentive wise doesn't really benefit or understand the individuals in a certain situation. And I thought, I just thought it was kind of interesting and cool.

[Dilly Hussain]

Community mediation used to be very normal within Italian communities, Irish communities in the Victorian times. It's not, it's not an alien concept.

[Peter McCormack]

Look, in our family we mediate as a family.

[Dilly Hussain]

Exactly. So all we're basically doing is going to. So as far as I'm aware, and I know a fair amount of the activities of the Sharia council, it's mainly to do with like marriage and counseling and disputes within families, because once the family can't resolve it and they want to resolve it within the framework of their faith, then they'll go to a Sharia council. I'm still, I'm unaware of a single time where a Muslim has said, right, I'm going to follow this Sharia law ruling from this Sharia council. And it completely goes against an English ruling. It doesn't. It's because a secular state doesn't interfere with the private affairs of someone's religious freedoms. So what I'm saying is that if you're going to ban Sharia councils, you need to ban all the councils. If you're going to ban Muslims praying in public, then that best be applied to everyone else. Otherwise then it's just going to seem like there's a problem with Muslims specifically.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, actually, there seems to have been almost the reverse because we have seen, we've seen up in Blackburn, Ewood park, they've allowed Muslims to pray on the pitch. We've seen it recently where people are praying on peaches in Chelsea.

[Dilly Hussain]

They did something. Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And I've, I've never seen, on Palace.

[Dilly Hussain]

Downing Street, I've never seen the police.

[Peter McCormack]

Stop this, but we have. I have seen Christian preachers been arrested or stopped. So there has been almost this two tier approach to religious freedoms in this country.

[Dilly Hussain]

I've seen quite a few, I've seen quite a few Christian preachers being arrested, being harassed by police. And I always go back to what were they actually saying? What were they saying for them to have been approached and apprehended like this?

[Peter McCormack]

This show is sponsored by Gemini. We live in a really strange time with governments driving inflation with their reckless spending and endless money printing. There is a way out of this. There is a way to protect your money, and that is by stacking bitcoin. I've made loads of shows about bitcoin. You can go and research this, you can go and read the books, but the truth is, it is the hardest money ever created. If you are interested in protecting your financial future, it's time for you to get on the bitcoin train. I have. I've been stacking bitcoin personally and through my businesses since 2017. It's protected me, it's secured my family's future and it also strengthens all of my businesses. So if you want to start stacking bitcoin, where do you do it? Well, for me it's with Gemini. They're a fully licensed, full reserve exchange and custodian. So they give you a secure way for you to buy and own your bitcoin. There's no risks and no funny business. So if you're serious about stacking Bitcoin the right way, head over to gemini.com, which is g-e m I n I dot com. Well, sometimes it's not even, it's not just because they've said something, somebody's complained about what they've said.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay, then, you know, police have the difficult task of upholding these laws. Remember, these are people who enforce the laws, they don't make the laws.

[Peter McCormack]

Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I know people are frustrated when they see two tier interpretations of what they see. One group is being treated against the other. I get those frustrations, but I don't think a Christian preacher should be harassed by police. I don't think if you're going to allow, if a part of religious freedom is that you will allow people to articulate and profess their faith in public and engage in polemics and engage in apologist discussions and basically try to convert and you have a missionary approach, I think everyone should be allowed that. The only line that would probably be drawn is when you incite incite violence or incite against a particular group and.

[Peter McCormack]

What it, what is incitement in this? Because we, you know, we, you know, we spoke prior to the show. You asked me do you think somebody should be arrested or prosecuted for burning the Quran? And I wrestled with it. I thought about it quite a bit and I don't think they should, I think, I don't think they should burn the Quran. I think they're a dick. I think if you're a dick, if you burn the Bible, I think if you provoke, if you, if you know it's offensive to somebody and you want to provoke, do this to as provocation, I think you're a dick. But I don't think it should be criminalized.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think if there's a law it should be applied to everyone. Well, that's the same, that's my position.

[Peter McCormack]

But do you think we should have blasphemy laws?

[Dilly Hussain]

But blasphemy laws are actually a Victorian creation. You do know that they don't exist.

[Peter McCormack]

And we don't have blasphemy.

[Dilly Hussain]

Not anymore.

[Peter McCormack]

Now.

[Dilly Hussain]

But, but the whole notion of blasphemy laws, at least in, in the British Raj, this was a conception, this is a Victorian conception that was, that was implemented in India. I, look, if you claim to be a secular liberal democracy and I'm going to keep going back to this because you have to base it on the, the principles which a particular state claims to champion and represent.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't think it. I don't think as a country, we've even decided that. Do you think we've evolved into that?

[Dilly Hussain]

For 14 years, the Tories told us that fundamental British values are mutual tolerance, individual liberty, rule of law and democracy.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

Cameron, Theresa May, Sunak, Boris, all of them, they all said the fundamental British values is those four things.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. But you are hearing a lot more now. People talk about, actually, we're a Christian nation. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

We're hearing that from some circles now, quite a few.

[Peter McCormack]

You know, we're a Christian nation. I don't think so.

[Dilly Hussain]

How does that also. What would that mean?

[Peter McCormack]

Well, I don't know. What I'm saying is, I don't think as a nation, we've just decided this. I don't think it's. I don't think it's had to be questioned. I only think more recently it has been questioned.

[Dilly Hussain]

I think what's happened, I think because Muslims exercise. I said this on the phone when we spoke, because Muslims exercise the rights that everyone else has because they just happen to be, for whatever reason, the most outwardly practicing or devout compared to other faith groups, it's more in your.

[Peter McCormack]

Face and it's something that looks different.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. And.

[Peter McCormack]

But.

[Dilly Hussain]

But you're seeing that Canadians, increasingly frustrated with Sikh and Hindu communities now. Increasingly. Because now they're also showing outward expressions of their religious festivals and so forth. So when you find certain groups, or one group amongst other groups practicing their faith publicly in the way that they are, I can understand why these conversations are happening. But what Muslims are doing, everyone else can do that if they wish.

[Peter McCormack]

But do you think we should have blasphemy laws?

[Dilly Hussain]

Do I think we should have blasphemy laws?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. But the Labour Party are pushing through legislation to have blasphemy laws, which really is blasphemy with regards to Islam, do you think that should exist, do you.

[Dilly Hussain]

Think, not just for Islam, No. But do you think.

[Peter McCormack]

Not just for Islam, do you think we should. Do you think if it should fall under free speech, criticism of religion should fall under free speech, or do you think it should be criminalized?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think there's a certain amount of free speech that should definitely be allowed. I think any criticism of any religion or any worldview should be had unarticulated in a way in which you can have the full breadth and depth of the conversation.

[Peter McCormack]

But how do you even. How do you find that under the law?

[Dilly Hussain]

But hear me out. If we're talking about mockery, inflammatory language, language that could Potentially lead to public disorder. I think that is where you'd have to understand it case by case. Now, as a Muslim, God says in the Quran, Allah says in the Quran, do not insult their gods, for they will insult Allah back. So in the Islamic tradition, we're not even allowed to insult the idols of the Hindus or the Trinity. The conception of the Trinity amongst Christians, even though it's something that's very controversial and disliked and hated in Islam, we are told not to insult other gods. So I believe that free speech, in criticizing religion, any religion, including Islam, all the issues that you have about Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, the Sharia law, all of it should be expressed and be allowed to express. What I have in issues, and this is my position, is that all sacred things should be protected just for the sake of public order. And what I mean by this is that you want to say X, Y and Z about Islam or Judaism or Christianity, by all means, God, go say it, go do it. But do it in a manner in which it's not going to cause upheaval and dramas and riots sometimes.

[Peter McCormack]

How can you define that?

[Dilly Hussain]

I think you said it to me on the phone. I'd much rather someone just go up to a Muslim and ask him a question instead of burning the Quran.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

So that's one way of doing it.

[Peter McCormack]

Of course, but it always. You have to police it. Yeah. How do you police it? It becomes a slippery slope. It's like hate speech laws. Had a long debate with somebody I know very well recently, and I said, I don't think we should have hate speech rules. They're like, what you want? About what? About if someone says this or somebody says that? And I'm like, yeah, society should punish them for that. It's a little bit like Sharia mediation. That is essentially a community figuring something out. I believe the community should figure out hate speech in that we should. We can oppose it as an individual and we can socially ostracize people for the things we don't like. But I don't think we should criminalize it because of the slippery slope. Because I fear the state more than anyone, and I fear the state weaponizing the laws it creates against a second order.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, that threat's always there. So do you prefer more of an American model?

[Peter McCormack]

Am I. Yeah, I do, actually. I do like. I do like the constitutionally protected speech. I think. I think that's. I think it's the way to be. I think you and I having this conversation would be good. And I also think. I think me having the Conversation with Tommy after, before was good, and maybe the one after. I think speech is good. I think.

[Dilly Hussain]

I definitely think speech is good as well.

[Peter McCormack]

But what I fear is once we criminalize speech, we do two things. We push it on the ground. We give a weapon to the government to oppress people as and when they need it, and we stop people having free thought and free idea. The problem is when we're a nation which is so fucking divided on so many issues that when you start to criminalize speech, it starts to get used, and it'd be used by political parties, which, by the way, takes me to another point.

[Dilly Hussain]

Are you a free speech absolutist? Not, Not.

[Peter McCormack]

Not an absolutist. If I said name somebody and their address and coerce someone to go and kill them, I think I should be arrested. But I think the incitement to violence needs to be a very high bar. We had the incident with Lucy Connolly and the other chap. I've forgotten his name, so. I always forget.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

And I, I. And I don't think, by the way, I don't think either of us should go to jail. I think it's a high bar. Yeah, high bar to go to jail.

[Dilly Hussain]

Lucy, Kanye doing that stretch.

[Peter McCormack]

And I don't. Yeah. And I don't approve what she said.

[Dilly Hussain]

I find what she said was repulsive and very problematic.

[Peter McCormack]

And the same with this. They're both repulsive and they're unnecessary. And. And so, yes, I'm not an absolutist in that. Incitement to violence. Strong incitements of violence should be criminalized.

[Dilly Hussain]

When you say blasphemy laws, are you talking specifically to. What would I support laws protecting stuff like the burning of the Quran or blasphemy laws generally for all religions?

[Peter McCormack]

Satire with regards to, say, what Charlie Hebdo did.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay.

[Peter McCormack]

Which, again, as a Muslim.

[Dilly Hussain]

Look, as a Muslim warrior, I can't support that.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I wouldn't support that for them.

[Peter McCormack]

To do that to a Jew or to a Christian. But that's your personal choice. I'm saying should. Should we have laws that prevent that?

[Dilly Hussain]

My position is that we should have laws that prevents the type of speech, hate speech, humor, mockery, whatever you may call it, that could descend into public disorder.

[Peter McCormack]

But how do you define what descends into public disorder?

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, we have. We have examples that. To go by. Isn't it things that cause riots, things that cause murders, things that cause racial and religious tensions. We have examples.

[Peter McCormack]

But what if two. What if two bits of speech which are very similar, one does cause A right one. Doesn't you have to be case by case. I just think it's. I don't like it. I think we should protect all speech because we need to be able to think, criticize, we need, we need satire. But I think there are.

[Dilly Hussain]

And that includes like outright mockery and burning the Quran and burning religious books. And I.

[Peter McCormack]

Yes, I do, but I, but I also think you're a dick if you do it.

[Connor]

You got visited by the police.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Connor]

For an incident like that.

[Peter McCormack]

So I. Bedfordshire police.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. I had two sids, two cids visit.

[Peter McCormack]

Me man for non crime hate speech. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

Basically the same thing that Alison Pearson from the Telegram. Literally exactly the same thing. I tweeted saying this is how all Israelis should be treated when arriving at Muslim majority countries. And that was in reference to a protest that took place in Dagestan of angry protesters that were basically protesting against Israelis using their arriving in the airports. I agreed with that. At the peak of the, at the ongoing genocide. I don't want Israelis arriving and thinking it's all hunky and dory. They should feel the pressure. It then surfaced an hour later that some of the protesters had knives and they actually went there to harm the Israelis and some of them were saying anti Semitic things. My initial tweet was exactly the same as every other media was reporting angry protesters within an hour, hour and a half. As the story was developing, it turned out that some of the protesters.

[Peter McCormack]

Oh, hold on a second. Your tweet I doubt would be the same as what media were reporting you. You are. There's an argument that you're like under what you said, that is incitement.

[Dilly Hussain]

Hear me out. Yeah, no, but I didn't always incite. When the story broke. When the story broke it was protesters outside an airport in an hour. It then became the story that these protests, some of them had knives, some of them had knives and some of them wanted to wish harm on the people arriving off those planes. Those are two very different things. And when that development happened, I clarified. I said now that it's surfaced that some of the protesters went to do things. This is something that I unequivocally condemn.

[Connor]

But this is a great point on how do you police it? Because there are always nuances. Right.

[Dilly Hussain]

So there's two.

[Connor]

How do we know you didn't know that when you originally made that post?

[Dilly Hussain]

So there's two issues here. Number one, I'm not even talking about UK related issues issue. That's the first legal issue. That's the first legal reason as to why I shouldn't have got any visit, I did not say anything related to a UK citizen or the uk, so I should have got no visit because the thing that I tweeted about had nothing to do with Britain, British law, British citizens, but yet I got a visit for non. What's it called? Non. Hate crimes. What was it? Non.

[Peter McCormack]

Non crime hate speech.

[Dilly Hussain]

Non crime hate speech. Yeah. It's so fucking dumb, isn't it? Yeah. So that's why we're visited for.

[Peter McCormack]

Why don't they just call it. It's a telling off.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's what.

[Peter McCormack]

It's a naughty step.

[Dilly Hussain]

Well, they did, they came and they said, look, it's just to be mindful, to quote them. He said, I just want you to be a bit mindful.

[Peter McCormack]

It's the naughty step. You got put on the naughty step.

[Dilly Hussain]

So look, nephew, when you said that, if I'd have said this is how all Israelis should be treated upon arriving at Heathrow Airport, that's very different. If I knew that some of the protesters had violent intentions and I refused to clarify and make my position clear, I can understand.

[Peter McCormack]

Legally, yeah. Ethically. We still have a question to ask about this, though, which is, well, should.

[Dilly Hussain]

I have been visited by the police or not?

[Peter McCormack]

Yes, should you have been? And could. Could we argue that you're inciting violence? Because if. What if. What if off the back of that, somebody did go to Heathrow Airport, a group of people did go to Heathrow Airport and waited on a plane that's come from Israel and harass them, attacked them. That could be pointed at your tweet that you've incited violence.

[Dilly Hussain]

If the same tweet where I explicitly said Muslim countries doesn't.

[Peter McCormack]

What if.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, it might as well.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. But. No, no, no, but what I'm saying is, is people can interpret things in their own way, then we just open.

[Dilly Hussain]

Up, then it's a whole can of worms. And isn't it. What do we interpret things?

[Peter McCormack]

That's. But that's the point I'm trying to make is, is how people read and interpret things themselves may be entirely different from what you mean. But. But you, you still said something that might inspire, something that might incite some kind of violence. And so, you know, should you be able to say that about Heathrow Airport or should you be able to say that about any airport? Both, because there's a legal question and then there's an ethical, difficult question. You might go, well, legally, I'm. I didn't say the uk, but what if. What if in an Islamic country somebody did arrive from Israel and they got attacked and beaten up, how would you feel about what you said as an.

[Dilly Hussain]

Example, when the, when the last summer riots were happening and Tommy made this video that went viral, he went, get them out, get them out now.

[Peter McCormack]

Get all of them out.

[Dilly Hussain]

That is a. He didn't get pinched for that. He didn't get lifted or visited by the police for that. And that was during the riots. Very specific, very relevant.

[Peter McCormack]

I'd have to see that video to know what you're talking about. See if you can find it. I'll get it for you, but that's fine. But look, we can talk about Tommy. I'm just your wars.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no, because I specifically made it very clear. I made it very clear. I did it in context to Muslims in Muslim majority countries and I made it very clear for those protests to not be violent.

[Connor]

You also spoke about mockery. And through the research before this interview, I found out you posted a picture of a snake.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, that was like 12 years ago.

[Connor]

But is that mockery?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, I wouldn't regard that as mockery. I would certainly say I would have framed it differently because the issue with that tweet was. I'll just let you know what that was. There was a snake with a star of David on it and it was. I think it was eating an Arab or a Muslim looking person.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, no. So it's two, isn't it? It's one where it's feeding the same.

[Dilly Hussain]

Feeding how it was and how he was treat.

[Peter McCormack]

So this is like what you said earlier about when the Jews first arrived, the Palestinians would share their food from the orchards with them. And now look where we are. That's the point that is making, is that the Palestinians were welcoming to the Jewish and the Jewish are now killing them.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you know what the main issue of that image, that entire image was?

[Peter McCormack]

It's the snake.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, it was the star on David, on the snake. That's what it was. And I apologize for that because I acknowledge that that could have been worded and what I wanted to say could have been done much better. So I acknowledge fault for that. Sometimes you can get it wrong.

[Peter McCormack]

But would you. But do you defend yourself?

[Connor]

Do you think you should have gone to prison for it?

[Dilly Hussain]

Of course not.

[Connor]

But that's mockery.

[Dilly Hussain]

But who's calling for who to go to prison?

[Connor]

You just said you think mockery should be the line.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, I didn't.

[Peter McCormack]

You did. You did. You said a mockery of the religion. That is a red line.

[Dilly Hussain]

I said mockery of a religion which would cause public disorder and unrest. Could be a red line.

[Peter McCormack]

But what if that tweet of that image caught cause public.

[Dilly Hussain]

It has to be dealt with case by case.

[Peter McCormack]

But. But you understand, he says challenge and it is because. Send it to Connor so we can put it up there so we can see it properly. Shouldn't be here. They're endangering the safety of our families. Men will rise up who are always going to rise up. They have to rise up to defend their families. You fought this war on our shores. He's talking about hotels.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, so that was during the riot, the boat.

[Peter McCormack]

Get them out of them hotels. Get them gone, like.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay, yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

What's your point on that one?

[Dilly Hussain]

Very specific, very timely. During the riots, specifying, not saying this is intention.

[Peter McCormack]

During what rights? The south.

[Dilly Hussain]

The Southport rights.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

When hotels in Telford and not Tamworth, another place would be in Petrobond. So that is, I would say respectfully, is a far better example of where speech can be interpreted very easily as incitement, especially when this is to do with something that's happening in the uk. My tweet.

[Peter McCormack]

Hold on. Isn't he addressing the government there?

[Dilly Hussain]

Get them effing out. Men will rise up.

[Peter McCormack]

War. Yeah, yeah. So how is that.

[Dilly Hussain]

So how is that excusable in the context of it?

[Peter McCormack]

I'm trying to interpret it. He's saying, get them out.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay.

[Peter McCormack]

Or mem will rise up. He's like. He's like, if you don't do this, this is what's going to happen.

[Dilly Hussain]

Afford me the same privilege.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, no, no, it's not the privilege. Let me just interpret. I'm just trying to interpret it first, just so we're precise. I don't think he's trying to incite people to go to hotels. I think what he's doing is issuing a warning to the government. You need to get these people out or you're going to see. Memorize up.

[Dilly Hussain]

Could it be misinterpreted?

[Peter McCormack]

Anything can be misinterpreted, which is the point I'm trying to make to you. Your tweet where you're showing a snake with a star.

[Dilly Hussain]

David could be missed 13 years ago, which I've apologized for.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no, no, no, it's important.

[Peter McCormack]

That's important.

[Connor]

Lucy Connolly apologizes for what you said.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, I'm against Lucy Connolly going to prison.

[Peter McCormack]

So are we.

[Connor]

But you just said mockery should be punished.

[Dilly Hussain]

Mockery? No, no, I said a red line. Could be mockery, which could Descend into public disorder and unrest. That is, that's a very important caveat, whether it's not just mockery. So let's make it very clear. I do not believe just mockery should be criminally prosecuted. That's outrageous. But I think there should be laws that protect any type of insightful speech that could lead to wider unrest.

[Peter McCormack]

Let me tell you why.

[Dilly Hussain]

Tension between communities. I think those are two very different things.

[Peter McCormack]

Let me tell you why. It's a slippery slope. Is that what it inspires comes after the action. And if you prosecute the reaction by others to what somebody has said, well, what, what is it? Is it one person? If one person sets fire to a hotel or one person waits outside a hotel and beats somebody up, or, or somebody goes to an airport and harasses people. If people don't know. If people know there might be consequences, but they don't know what they are, they will self censor because they might be what this might inspire, this might not. And I'll give you a great example. I've been through a five year lawsuit, libel lawsuit for saying something that was entirely true on Twitter about a known criminal. You know who it is and I do, Craig Wright and nearly had my life destroyed and I now self censor criticism of certain people because I fear it nearly destroyed my life and I fear it. I don't. There was no slap protection in this country. There was no constitutional protection of my speech and I was entirely right. Okay. And if you have laws in place where you have, you know, unknown consequences and consequences you can't measure, then you're going to have people self censor or you're going to have people punished and you're going to, we're going to go, well, was that really incitement? It's like, was your. Could you argue that a Star of David on a snake is incitement of violence against.

[Dilly Hussain]

Absolutely not.

[Peter McCormack]

No. But what if somebody read your tweet and went and attacked a Jewish person and they say, but what if they.

[Dilly Hussain]

Said if we get. Then that means we're literally opening the can of worms to anything.

[Peter McCormack]

That's exactly what I'm saying to you.

[Dilly Hussain]

But I'm saying that that's why it should be stress tested and case by case we should understand the context in which something was said, the timing of what was said, what was happening in that period, where was it said? Who does it apply to? These are all very genuine questions.

[Peter McCormack]

It's so vague that you could criminalize one person for an action and not criminalize another you could criminalize yourself. And what I'm saying is I want to. I think that's. I disagree with that tweet. I think it is an anti Semitic trope, and I defend your right to do it because I don't want the state punishing speech.

[Dilly Hussain]

But I also apologize for that too, because I acknowledge that as a Muslim, I should have worded what I had to say much better.

[Peter McCormack]

The apology doesn't change whether the state can prosecute you or not.

[Dilly Hussain]

So hear me out. Do you think human beings generally should be as courteous as they can when engaging with other human beings? Is that.

[Peter McCormack]

It'd be nice?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah.

[Peter McCormack]

But it depends on the scenario.

[Dilly Hussain]

Okay. But as a base standard, we want humans to interact in a good way. Right?

[Peter McCormack]

And I think they do. Yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

So. And. And so therefore, we just need to. What I'm trying to say is that the line has to be drawn when there's a particular event taking place. You have to understand what's happening around here. What's the timing of the tweet? I think if Lucy Conley tweeted that same thing when riots weren't happening, she wouldn't have got arrested and gone, sent to prison.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, you say that. I mean, I think this.

[Dilly Hussain]

How many people.

[Peter McCormack]

We had that chart that came up since the Labour Party have come into power, how many public order offenses there are and have people in jail for public order offenses. We saw somebody arrested the other day for calling somebody a Muppet.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's. That's. That's ridiculous.

[Peter McCormack]

Of course it's ridiculous.

[Dilly Hussain]

But if you're comparing.

[Connor]

But when you have a vague line, stuff like that happens. That's our point.

[Peter McCormack]

That's what I'm saying. It's like, today's been so interesting, honestly. We're gonna have a really interesting chat on the way home, me and Connor, because I think. I think you've helped me today. And I'm definitely gonna have a shift in my thinking. And also I'm definitely gonna have people who said, you've given him an easy time. And definitely have people say, you've been really respectful. You did a good. There's gonna be a range of shit. And mainly it's gonna be shit, probably. But I think here, I think this is the area where I don't think. I think you're being inconsistent. Because when I say I would defend your tweet, and I think it's a dick tweet to send, but I defend it, and you say, but I apologize, that doesn't change the implications of allowing the Government to criminalize it.

[Dilly Hussain]

But that was. But that type of tweet wasn't a criminal offense.

[Peter McCormack]

No, but it could be considered a criminal offence if there was a violent act off the back of it.

[Dilly Hussain]

Again, you'd have to take a case.

[Peter McCormack]

By case, Peter, which is a problem because you could put that tweet out 13 years ago and if it did exist on the case by case basis, if somebody wanted to, you know, if a judge had a particular internal biases, there could be a scenario where you would face jail for that tweet.

[Dilly Hussain]

What would you say? When there are riots happening, there's tension in communities like we are right now.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah.

[Dilly Hussain]

Like in a bit of a tinderbox right now.

[Peter McCormack]

This is the 65% increase in people in prison for public order offenses. And look, where did that start? 30th of June 2024. What happened in June 2024?

[Dilly Hussain]

Basically all the madness.

[Peter McCormack]

We had a new government.

[Dilly Hussain]

We had a new government.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah. We had a government which likes to criminalize speech. So you're going to ask me now, well, when there's rights going off, you know, what should we do about that?

[Dilly Hussain]

So when there's riots happening and there's major racial and religious and community tensions taking place, I think it's irresponsible to exercise your right to free speech when you know that what you may say or do at a particular given time and context can lead to further unrest and violent unrest.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't disagree. I did disliked Lucy Connolly's tweet. I think if anyone actually goes and sets fire to hotel on reading that tweet, that they are the problem.

[Dilly Hussain]

Let's also make here. I do not believe that Lucy Connelly should have been sent to prison.

[Peter McCormack]

But going back to what I think you're asking me is you basically I.

[Dilly Hussain]

Said, what should be responsible with speech? Yeah, of course, that's it. Ultimately, that's what I'm saying. Be responsible with speech.

[Peter McCormack]

Sure.

[Dilly Hussain]

Be mindful of what your speech can potentially lead to, given the context of that time. But that's ultimately what I'm saying.

[Peter McCormack]

What should Keir Starmer have done at that time? It's kind of one of the questions at which time.

[Dilly Hussain]

What he should have done at that time.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, because I'll tell you what, Lucy Kunli, or generally, I think you're asking me that you're saying, because if at a time when there's tensions, there's community.

[Dilly Hussain]

Tensions, because there were telegram groups talking about targeting this area, that area, this mosque, this hotel, this and that, when those type of activities are taking place, there needs to be a bit more caution from everyone. All good faith factors to think that we don't want this issue to escalate.

[Peter McCormack]

I agree.

[Dilly Hussain]

And we don't want to have a shit show in the country.

[Peter McCormack]

But the COVID up of the rape gangs also came down to people worried about community tensions. So we can't mention people's faith, we can't mention their nationality, because we don't want to have tensions in those communities. And perhaps.

[Dilly Hussain]

Shall I tell you why? That's a big issue.

[Peter McCormack]

But it's an issue.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's a different issue. A crime had already been committed and.

[Peter McCormack]

The crime would continue to be committed.

[Dilly Hussain]

Because that was wrong. That shouldn't have happened.

[Peter McCormack]

Exactly.

[Dilly Hussain]

But those are two very different things. Because crimes had already happened. So many of it happened is being covered if that's what happened. Very different to someone tweeting or posting something.

[Peter McCormack]

But dilly it's the same framework because it's worrying about tensions. What actually I think should have happened that time, I think Keir Starmer should have gone to Southport. He's the leader of our country, he's our Prime Minister. He should have gone to South Port and he should have stood there and he should have spoken to people. He should have quelled the tensions. He should have said, I hear you. I understand your pain. These young girls have been slaughtered. I understand that you are fearful about who this person is and their background. I said, please go home. We as a government, we're going to do the right investigation, we're going to allow the police to do their investigations and we will report back accurately. And if there is a problem here, we will report back and we will talk about it. And you know, because some of their fears were founded. He did have a terrorist manual. He, he, he had been trying to manufacture rice and they were founded. But Keir Starmer, he could have gone out to everyone, he could have calmed the nation, but no one, but he can't do that because he has no backbone and no one expects him.

[Dilly Hussain]

Agreed.

[Peter McCormack]

But I do, honestly, I think today has been great. But I think there is a fundamental hole in your theoretical framework around free speech.

[Dilly Hussain]

Because that's. Because I'm not a free speech advocate. I've never claimed to be a free speech advocate.

[Peter McCormack]

You don't believe in free speech?

[Dilly Hussain]

No, no, I believe that. But there is no such thing as absolute free speech.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, I mean, there isn't. Free speech exists as a princip whole and within the law.

[Dilly Hussain]

We have, we have copyright Laws, we have liber laws, we have defamation laws, you have hate speech laws. We have all types of speech, which is police.

[Peter McCormack]

No, I agree, yeah, but.

[Dilly Hussain]

So there is no real notion of like free speech in its absolute terms. My.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, there is. There were people who have a. Who are. Their principle is they are free speech absolutist. Their constraint is how free, how speech is referred to in the law. They're two separate things. There's principle and the law.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's a debate that's taking place in so many different countries because what type of speech should be allowed, what type of speech crosses a legal red line that requires criminal prosecution is a debate that's not just taking place in Britain, even though Britain's been at the center stage of it because of the riots and stuff that's been happening. I never claimed to be a free speech advocate. I am someone who believes in good speech, speech, speak well with each other, avoid mockery, avoid insult.

[Peter McCormack]

But that's your principle.

[Dilly Hussain]

Avoid angering.

[Peter McCormack]

Yes, so, so, so that's your principle, which is great, sure. But my question to you was, should it be criminalized? And your answer has been on a case by case basis. If it does incite something, if something happens off the back of it, then yes. And all I'm saying.

[Dilly Hussain]

Or during it.

[Peter McCormack]

Or during it. And all I'm saying is there are things that you said that could be interpreted in that way. Something could happen and you yourself could have then been arrested. You've been, you've had a knock on the door from Bedford police. But there are scenarios that you can map out where you would have been taken away and prosecuted in a court of law. And I don't want you dilly to be prosecuted for something like that. I don't want you to send the tweet because I think it's a dick tweet. But I don't want you to be prosecuted. And that's why I'm saying my principles, I have much stronger principles of free speech than the government does. And I think that's important for me in the world. I want to talk to you about one of my sponsors, Incogni, and that means we're going to talk about the weird world of spam. And I don't just mean those spam emails that you get day after day from companies you never heard of and companies you've never signed up to. I'm also talking about those spam phone calls you get from those people who seem to know a little bit too much about you trying to get your bank details. It's all a bit creepy right now. This all comes from the world of data brokerage. There are companies out there collecting your data, building profiles and sending that data to anyone who wants it. Which is why when one of those scammers phones you up, they seem to know everything about you. Now, I've tried, I've tried myself to get off these lists, try to get off the phone list, try to get off the email list. I unsubscribe from every one of these emails that comes in. But this game of Whack a Mole, it just never ends. And so this is where Incogni comes in. They do all the hard work for you. They reach out to these companies and they will get you legally removed from these lists. And I know because last time they sponsored my show, I signed up and I didn't take the free option that they offered me. I wanted to pay for it. I wanted to see if you get value for money. And they removed me from 79 data broker lists. And so I've stayed on, I've stayed a subscriber and I have seen a massive decrease in the number of emails and phone calls I've been getting. So it's a great service. I recommend you check it out. If you're sick of this like I was, please head over to incogni.com Peter and sign up. If you use the code, Peter, you will get a lovely 60% discount. So that's incogni.com Peter.

[Dilly Hussain]

Look, man, if I tweeted something during a riot, or if I tweeted something knowing full well that there is a climate and an environment where things are very tense and it can escalate and is pertaining to my country of residence and is pertaining to the legal framework of my country or where I live or where I'm a citizen of, then I would have to have some responsibility and mindfulness about what I tweet, and if I did do it, I deserve to be held to account.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, that's the error we're definitely not going to agree on because I, you know, I think we've gone round in circles.

[Dilly Hussain]

Peter, can I read out a letter?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, go.

[Dilly Hussain]

It was a letter which I wrote back in February 2024 out. It's called a sincere message to British patriots and nationalists. You can find it online. And. And I was thinking about this because it was happening at a time when the whole integration debate was happening. The, the grooming ram stuff was. Was ramping up, the genocide in Gaza was worsening and things were, you know, the discourse around Muslims and pro Palestine people and it was becoming so polarized. Yeah, there is.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, yeah, right. Da Nationalists and patriots. I hope and pray this message reaches you and your loved ones in the best of health. Just for a moment. If you're able to put your hatred or dislike for Muslims and migrants aside and generally reflect on the following statistics. The current birth. Okay, I mean, we're getting into. Yeah, okay. With. The current birth rate in UK is 1.6. Among British Muslims it is between 2.7, 2.9. Britain's Asian population at 11 million. In the top 10 in Europe for a state population, it's claimed that a nation's birth rate should be 2.1. Now ask yourself the following. Why 51.4% of all children in the UK born outside of marriage? Why is Christianity on rapid decline? I think it might. I think it might be making a comeback recently.

[Dilly Hussain]

Last.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, well, atheism, actually, I think atheists. Atheism is the fastest growing sector of. Within, I'm trying to say within religion because it's not religion in Britain or the world. In the uk, it's the fastest growing.

[Dilly Hussain]

It's between atheism and Islam.

[Peter McCormack]

But atheism, we looked this up recently. Why is the larger. Okay, there's an important.

[Dilly Hussain]

I hold my own community to account.

[Peter McCormack]

It's long. Where's the bit?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, so there's a bit. Go, go up. Nephew.

[Peter McCormack]

They called you nephew. I'm not going to call you nephew.

[Dilly Hussain]

So look here, I'm talking about. It was inevitable that at some point some of these issues were going to affect Muslim minorities living in secular, liberal, non Muslim countries. So I talk about how there are issues, there are issues within the Muslim communities. There are serious issues, issues that we need to speak about internally, address it. There's issues that are distinct to us and there's issues that are just. That transcends all communities.

[Peter McCormack]

I asked you this question.

[Dilly Hussain]

What do you mean?

[Peter McCormack]

What are the issues? The legitimate things, the drugs, the gambling.

[Dilly Hussain]

The pornography, the relationship issues? The same issues that affect everyone else?

[Peter McCormack]

All men, mainly.

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah, the issues that affect everyone else. And you know, and it was just a plea to nationalists to just think that, look, you know, is blaming migrants and Muslims really the thing to do? I mean, if we look at the root causes of foreign intervention, military intervention, British foreign policy, what we've been up to in very recent history, the two wars in Iraq, how white working class people are seen with disdain by the ruling elite and have always been cannon fodder for wars and for certain causes Always. Historically, the white working class man and woman and family has always been seen with disdain and dislike. That's where the whole notion of the chav was born from. So there is more socioeconomic realities and similarities between a brown or black Muslim or non Muslim and their white counterpart. If you're talking about socioeconomics purely right, there's more similarities, there's more struggles up north where things are grim and gray. Guess what? It's not sunny in one side of Bradford and sunny and cloudy in the white part of it. It's the same experience. So I just think that we need to have, we need to mature ourselves in the conversation.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, so one of the things I've brought up in the podcast a bunch of times, I think you might appreciate this. As I said, if you got, if you get rid of the, what is perceived as the immigration problem in the UK, say immigration was just ticking along at 100,000 a year over the last five, 10 years where people perceive as a problem. I still think right now we would be a nation that is at war with itself. I think we would still have political unrest. I think we'll still have to divide the communities. And the reason I believe that is that actually I think the biggest problem in this country is the machinery of the state and the way they have destroyed the money. And if you go back, look, you can make an argument that public services have not been able to grow with the level of migration. I'm willing to hear that and sympathize with that. But our government, year after year, decade after decade, continually steal from the people of this nation through inflation. And inflation doesn't pick on you by skin color or razor. It benefits the rich, the very rich of a certain level. And it's detrimental to everyone. When we've done the inflation numbers, I don't know if you've heard us talk about this, but houses are rough, say 350% over the last two decades. CPI is 84%. Nurses wages 27%. I think they are great measures of what's happened in this country. Youngsters, it doesn't matter whether you're Muslim, black, white, Jewish, it's going to be harder for you to buy a house because the houses are more expensive. The reason the house is more expensive because the fucking government hasn't built enough and they've destroyed the currency. And I think sometimes that we are put into this bloody boxing ring to fight with each other, to hide and distract from what the government has done, which is absolutely destroy the currency and destroy the wealth of this nation.

[Dilly Hussain]

And it's business as usual for them. Of course it's business as usual for them. Whilst there's racial tensions, religious tensions, some of it could be grounded in sound grievances, genuine concerns, like, look, for example, the wrong enemy.

[Peter McCormack]

Which is why that. That Tommy see, people say to me, you gave Tommy an easy time. Okay.

[Dilly Hussain]

Do you think you gave me an easy time?

[Peter McCormack]

I think you and I had the exact same start to the conversation as me and Tommy. I mean, this is every interview I do. I just had Suella in. We were really. I'm nice pretty much to everyone because I want to get to know them, and I want the audience to get to know them. And then sometimes things might get. I think we've only got heated on the free speech thing. I think you and I probably agree on significantly more than we disagree on. But the reason I didn't give Tommy a hard interview like Paxman is because he's done Paxman. He did trigonometry, he's done these interviews. I wanted to see a different side to him. And when I heard him say, you're hearing me talk about Islam a lot less. You're hearing me talk about the government, I was like, huh?

[Dilly Hussain]

Ah.

[Peter McCormack]

Now you know, the real problem, the.

[Dilly Hussain]

Core problem will always be the elite and the governments. It will forever be that it can never be a single group. Whether they're a religious group or a faith, it will always be the ruling.

[Peter McCormack]

Establishment, whether it's the British government, whether it's Netanyahu's government, whether it's Hamas, whether it's what's happening in Iran, whether it's.

[Dilly Hussain]

Bangladesh, whether it's Pakistan, whether it's Russia.

[Peter McCormack]

I mean, they're protesting in Bangladesh. Haven't they been about the nepotism within government?

[Dilly Hussain]

Yeah. I mean. I mean, they got rid of the Hasina regime and they're moving towards.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, but where are they now? Where is that regime now?

[Dilly Hussain]

Hiding in India.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Did they take their money with them?

[Dilly Hussain]

They did.

[Peter McCormack]

Of course.

[Dilly Hussain]

A lot of it's in Britain. A lot of it was protected by successive governments.

[Peter McCormack]

And you know what? Honestly, most of the people protested outside hotels or protests across this country, or even sympathetic to some of Tommy Robinson's ideas. They went on holiday to. I know Spain, went to a bar, got a pint, and you were in the bar. I don't know if you drink, maybe having a Coke. And they sat next to you at the bar. You probably both chat to each other. I think most people, it's like in America, when you get these liberals and conservatives who hate each other, you put them in a bar together, they don't know what their politics are. They'll probably get on.

[Dilly Hussain]

Most people would. Yeah, most people would get on. And I guess, look, just to wrap up for my part, I feel like we're kind of wrapping up.

[Peter McCormack]

I don't know man. I could. I think I'll go for it.

[Dilly Hussain]

I know we can't be gone forever.

[Connor]

35.

[Peter McCormack]

Wow. Without even thinking, wow. Remember our conversation before about what's the.

[Dilly Hussain]

Sweet spot for a duration of a podcast?

[Peter McCormack]

I think you were getting coffee and Diddy asked me what's the sweet spot? I said it's just as long as it takes.

[Dilly Hussain]

I'll say this much right, because I don't want. These are my concluding thoughts. Look beyond what's staring at you and what's been placed in your face. Policy making and decision makers are not in migrant communities and they're not specific or limited to one faith group. I'm asking people of all different political leanings. Since the discussion and discourse around everything from the state of Britain to integration to the war in Gaza, Ukraine, it's become so polarized, Peter, that the extremes makes it difficult to have any nuanced fact based discussion. Tommy, it's crazy that he. I'm finding myself actually agreeing with him on this specific matter. It is the ruling elite, it's the establishment, it's the decision makers, it's the string pullers, it's those who profit so handsomely from wars, from the type of immigration that we're seeing, from death, from destruction, from destabilization. It is those who are making those decisions that require the accountability that is truly required to bring societal change. That's my position. As for free speech, I'm a champion of speech. I just think people should use it because it's a huge responsibility to use it more in a better way to attain truth, to bring harmony to society. Now, if that means, and I know we're going to disagree on this, if that means you need to be mindful at times of what's happening around you, what's the tension? What's the situation? I think that does require some due consideration. But again, it's case by case, I protect your right to criticize Islam in whatever way, shape or form you want. Given that it's done, it's just my view, given that it's done with decorum and respect, why would then that means you're not a good faith actor. You don't really want to know about Islam. If the first thing you're going to say to me is burn the Quran to my face and call my prophet Pedo, you know, to say that, that's basically like I'm, I'm cursing the notion of it. Okay, yeah. In Arabic. So for me to. So I, I would think. Peter's not serious here. He doesn't know about Islam. He doesn't, he doesn't want to get to the bottom of the stuff if he's burning my book in front of me.

[Peter McCormack]

But what was the first thing I said to you when you emailed me?

[Dilly Hussain]

We had lots of that email, that first one.

[Peter McCormack]

Didn't I say? I said, I'll come down to Queensborough, I'll come to the mosque, come and meet me. Yeah, of course, of course I want to know.

[Dilly Hussain]

And I said, I'm happy to facilitate that. And I said, happy for you to come and come and do that. And.

[Peter McCormack]

Which is, by the way, why you. There isn't much criticism. I don't know if there is criticism of Islam for me, because it's not something I know or understand. It's not, it's not an issue I've run into. It's just not, it's not a lived experience for me.

[Dilly Hussain]

What's the experience been of Muslims in Bedford?

[Peter McCormack]

I just, I don't have an experience. I just have an experience of living around a bunch of people from different backgrounds, races, religions, and I never really, honestly, my biggest.

[Dilly Hussain]

That's a good thing.

[Peter McCormack]

My biggest problem in Bedford is the Socialist Republic of Castle Road or the wonky left wing neo Marxists who've got really wonky views of the world. That's my only community I've ever had a clash with. I'm kind of in warfare with them at the moment, but that's my only, the only people.

[Dilly Hussain]

The Castle area.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, that's the only people I've clashed with. I've never had an issue with people in Queen's park, in Kempston, in. Yeah. Bidnam, in Bromham. I've just, I don't, I don't have issues.

[Dilly Hussain]

Could you understand why, why Muslims were upset from Bedford?

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, I, I do, I'd understand why they're upset, but I understand why they're upset with Tommy Robinson because they've been, they've been grouped and generalized around narcotics. But more than that, generally, like, I think, I think on that specific one. Yes, sure, sure. I, I do, I do understand and I want people to understand that I did disagree with him and, you know, stuff. Doing an interview to Process everything. There'll be things in this. Someone's going to come and go, hold on. I mean, I had it. I mean, I tried my best to.

[Dilly Hussain]

Try to keep things factual and as well researched as possible.

[Peter McCormack]

Well, you had it with Jada Fransen.

[Dilly Hussain]

Oh, yeah. They felt I wasn't pushing back on that.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah. Contained unchallenged anti Semitic conspiracy theories. But I bet when. When that happened, and the same one you had with Mark Collett, I bet afterwards you went back and you had to have a look and go, oh, shit, maybe I did miss something, maybe I didn't. And that's the problem of doing an interview. It's very, very hard. There will be things in this. This will be one of the ones that's really painful because it's probably going to be probably one of my favorite interviews I've ever done. I've loved this. Yeah. Thanks for, well, look, nearly three hours and I didn't even realize. I've learned things. It's been interesting. I think.

[Connor]

I totally agree.

[Peter McCormack]

Yeah, I think so. But it's going to be one of the most painful experiences if I read the comments. Now, Rogan said if I read the comments, because there are going to be people who are going to say that I've given you an easy ride. There's going to be basically Jewish sympathizers and Palestinian sympathizers who've got no room for debate on this and they're going to lose their shit at me. There's going to be people say, pete, you don't know. You're dumb as a rock. You don't know about history. You should have challenged Dilly on this. And you've let a pass for this. It's just the nature and the reality of this job. But what I do know, Dilly, is there is a bunch of people probably like me who aren't. They don't know everything. Probably feel a little bit like there's this open warfare around them. They don't understand all the problems of the issues and they can relate to where I am with this and relate to where you are and probably go, thank. Thanks. That was helpful. Like, the Tommy one helps some people and this will help further.

[Dilly Hussain]

I hope it does.

[Peter McCormack]

And that's why we keep. And honestly, I, you know, I would really. I would really like if it could be done in a way, if you both just sit down and have a chat like you and I did. I'd love to see you and Tommy talk. You might shift him. He might shift you. I don't know but I'd like to see it. Don't want to see you two fight, even if it does, you know, raise some money for some food back in Bedford. Yeah, I loved it. Honestly.

[Dilly Hussain]

I. I thank you for having me.

[Peter McCormack]

Open invite. Come whenever you want. We'll talk about it again, which we can even get in some of the. The hard criticisms that people have had of you. Yeah. Over time.

[Dilly Hussain]

Thank you for having me on. It's been a pleasure.

[Peter McCormack]

Thank you. To everyone listening. Go easy in the comments. We'll see you all soon.

[Dilly Hussain]

Take care, folks.

[Peter McCormack]

Thank you. Bye.