"Tragic And OBSCENE!" Is Henry Nowak Death The New George Floyd? + Iran War Debate

The parallels between the Henry Novak killing and George Floyd are undeniable.The difference is this.Henry Novak actually was who the left pretended George Floyd out to be.

If there had been a situation where a black kid was walking down the street and a white guy stabbed him to death and then the cops handcuffed the black dude while he was bleeding out and sided with the white dude who had just stabbed him to death, I don't think Mark would be up here saying, let's not make this a race issue.

This is an opportunity for us to think about policing differently.either reform or, in my tradition, abolition.

Mark, when you say abolition, are you actually advocating for abolishing the police altogether?

I am, yes.Right now, you have Nigel Farage, and he said the following.I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rain.

I can't breathe, the chilling words of 18 -year -old student Henry Novak as he lay dying in handcuffs, falsely accused of a racist attack by the man who just stabbed him as it turned out to death.The video is harrowing, but it should be seen far and wide by as many people as possible.

What's happened to you, alright?I've been stabbed.You've been stabbed?Whereabouts?I don't think you have, mate.

Well, the police officers didn't believe he'd been stabbed.One of them actually told him directly.They read him his rights and cuffed his hands, even as he lay dying.The officers did believe Vikram Digwar, Henry's Sikh killer, who stayed at the scene of the murder he'd just committed, to falsely accuse his dying victim of a racist assault.The parallels with George Floyd are clear, but it's not about martyrdom.It's about how society

and culture responds to tragedy and outrage.Black Lives Matter had global support to begin with, but unity in a crisis doesn't last for long.Facts change, people fight about the solutions, fanatics and other camp use the public's passion to push fanatical ideas.And that's how BLM mutated into an obsession with racism and identity, hand in hand with believing all victims and assuming guilt.That's how you end up with official guidance from police chiefs which says that officers should treat white people and minorities differently.Our commitment to racial equity means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups, it says.

The equality of policing outcomes should be directly connected to whether you commit another crime and nothing else.It's hard to imagine that any of this language would exist without the post -BLM climate of hysteria, which led to branding everything from cricket to the actual countryside as institutionally racist.But since this whole thing is about overcorrection, about bad reactions to genuine outrage, we have to look at what's happened since.Henry's father said this.

We do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred, or tension.We want his story to make our streets safer for everyone.

Nigel Farage, in a so -called emergency address, then said this.

Henry's family have responded to this in just the most extraordinarily dignified way.But I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure, cold rage.

All right, on cue, there were violent protests and clashes with police in Southampton where the murder happened.Last night, Toby Robinson whipped them up with a speech talking about Pakistani Muslims, who had nothing to do with his killing.Elon Musk has led the charge online, as many US commentators are seized on this horror as proof that white people have been victims all along.The truth is, the same people were the loudest critics of identity politics.The idea that characteristics like skin colour should define everything and that one group of peopleabuses the other.

The other can't see the trap they're falling into or more likely they can and they're doing this for vengeance.We should all be incensed by Henry Novak's murder and demand it never happens again but nothing ever gets better if you simply repeat the same mistakes.Well joining me in the studio for the first time actually is Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.Michael, You're in England, you're in London, you're in my studio.It's a trifecta of joy.

It's good to be with you, sir.Thank you for having me.

Really great to see you.You're here to talk at the Oxford Union, amongst other things, but it's great to have you here, particularly for what is going to be, I think, a very pertinent debate, and I'll be very interested in your views on this.We're also joined by Mark Lamont Hill, the host of BET News, by Wajahat Ali, the author of The Left Hook Newsletter, and Dave Smith, host of Part Of The Problem.So, a really top -class panel for a really important debate here.And let me start with you, Michael, if I may, about this, because we all remember the George Floyd horror.And it was, from my perspective, I wrote this at the time, I believe it now, he should never have died.

It was a horrific thing to watch on video.The reaction was enormous globally.Some felt it was an overreaction.Others looked for fault in George Floyd.But ultimately, I felt it was a police officer massively behaving in a way which should never have been tolerated.And indeed, he's now incarcerated.

Here we have again, in the UK, we have at least one police officer, but a group of them were there, but one who just not only refused to believe that Henry Novak had been stabbed, but the police collectively bought into the killer's story.that he had been the subject of racial abuse and that that was what was really going on here, which turned out all to be complete nonsense.I don't want to read too much into this, aside from the fact that...people want to, people calling for civil war and the rest of it.I don't want to read too little into it, Michael.This to me was a horrific thing, which is a stain on the British police, and I do think was a direct consequence of a lot of the fallout from the BLM period, where I think a lot of institutions swung the pendulum too far the other way and began to make terrible miscalculations as we saw in this moment where their first thought was to believe a claim of racism which turned out to be untrue.

What is your perspective on this?

The parallels between the Henry Novak killing and George Floyd are undeniable.They use the very same words, the very same dying words, I can't breathe.The difference is this.Henry Novak actually was who the left pretended and tried to make George Floyd out to be.That was the big difference.You know, we can look at the killing of George Floyd and say it was very sad and it shouldn't have happened and this could have changed or that could have changed.

But the fact is, the police were there because George Floyd had committed a crime, George Floyd ingested four times the lethal limit of fentanyl.George Floyd then resisted arrest for minutes and minutes on end.And so the use of force by Derek Chauvin was a use of force of last resort.In this case here, you have this poor guy, Henry Novak, who is bleeding to death on the ground.And the police actually are showing you a two -tiered system of justice that actually is racially discriminatory.That is all of the things that we were told were going on with the George Floyd case.

The difference is, in this case, There was absolutely no explanation, no justification whatsoever.It was the police taking the side of a perpetrator over the victim, refusing to believe the victim, I think, pretty clearly, on the basis of his race.Martin Monhill, your response to that?

There are a few things that were said.So one, the police in the George Floyd case certainly used excessive force, and the force that they used wasn't a last resort.There were other measures they could have used, including not having their foot on his neck.Even after he was subdued, they still used excessive force.I think that's sort of indisputable at this point.And yes, a crime was committed allegedly, but Police are often around when crimes are committed.

You know, the whole job of being a police officer is to manage circumstances and situations when crimes are committed.And too often in this country, and in your country, we see that when crimes are committed police are an escalating force rather than a de -escalating force.I don't think this is a moment to say, hey, you know, the truth is white guys are the ones who are catching all the hell, or non -black or brown people are the ones catching all the hell when it comes to policing in this ostensible two -tiered system of justice.I think a better way of thinking about it is this is an opportunity for us to think about policing differently.This is an opportunity for us to think about force differently, and this is an opportunity to think about either reform or in my tradition abolition differently with regard to policing in the streets and policing in our neighborhood.

When you say abolition, hang on Mark, when you say abolition are you actually advocating for abolishing the police altogether?

I am yes, but I think it's more important.You have no police force at all.That is what I'm saying and I'm offering alternatives to policing so it's not that we you know, we fire all the police and let the citizens run themselves.There are other mechanisms and systems that we can install, like public safety forces, like drug treatment forces, like violence interruption forces, that would do the jobs that police are currently doing, but better prepare those forces to create safe environments and safe neighborhoods.But I just want to finish the other thought before we get distracted by the abolition point here.It's a pretty big point to distract.

the debate.I have to say, I mean, you know, I hear you, but just calmly throwing in, let's abolish the police.I mean, that's an extraordinary thing to say.

I'm glad that you find it extraordinary, but it's no more of a distraction than pointing to George Floyd's alleged crimes when we're talking about an incident that happened all the way across the Atlantic.In both cases, we could focus just on this incident, and that's what I'm just trying to do as I finish this last point, which is a very simple one.What happened here was awful.The police should be held accountable.But we shouldn't be saying, I don't want to see violence in the streets.I don't want to see people harmed.

I just want to take this as an opportunity to figure out how we can handle this situation differently.And it doesn't mean giving different outcomes to people based on whether they committed the crime or not.even if I commit a crime.I still shouldn't be beaten or shot or stabbed.I shouldn't be choked out of my life.No matter what happens, I should still be given an opportunity to have a fair hearing, a fair trial, and due process.

And that's for everybody.I don't care what race you are.

But he was, Mark.I mean, I guess that's the point.The reason there's a George Floyd parallel here is because of the claims of two -tier justice and racial discrimination and those very words, I can't breathe.And the distinction I'm pointing out here is, in the case of George Floyd, he was resisting arrest.The police didn't immediately go to putting their knee on his back or on his neck.They tried to subdue him, and he was acting erratic, perhaps in part because he'd ingested four times the lethal dose of drugs.

And in the case of Henry Novak, None of that occurred whatsoever.Henry Novak was bleeding out on the ground, and he said, I've been stabbed.The killer said, he hasn't been stabbed.And the female cop says to the killer, yeah, I know, but I guess we have to check anyway, don't they?There was a two -tiered system here.There was racial discrimination.

I guess I'm just pointing out that what happened to Henry Novak is the real version of what people pretended happened to George Floyd.Well, I mean, look, I'll bring in Dave Smith here.

I mean, Dave, my opinion about both is that neither man should have died.Now, I will qualify that by saying that ifall the professional accounts, it is more likely than not that Henry Novak would have bled out anyway, whatever the police did.And it's important to caveat the debate, I think, with that knowledge that that was what was established in court.They all said, all the experts, that in that situation, it would be highly unlikely that he would have survived.However, what we've now seen on video in our own eyes, as we saw with George Floyd in a very different way, but we saw completely unnecessary, very prolonged kneeling on somebody's neck until he passed out and then died.

To me, that's completely unacceptable, whatever the circumstances leading up to it.In relation to Henry Novak, we saw an unbelievably callous disregard for an 18 -year -old man who was literally dying in that moment on the ground.And they didn't not only not believe him, but they had immediately believed his killer, who had invented this version of events which suited him based on race.And I think the line that can be drawn between the two is I do think that the hysteria that followed George Floyd's killing, and I think that's an accurate word, whether people agreed with the level of it or not, it was hysterical.I don't think anything quite like it around the world led to rioting all over America.The direct line is surely that the pendulum that swung violently then against institutions to be more racially sensitive, DEI programs, and all the rest of it.

I think there is a causal link here to the thinking of these police officers in the UK in the way they handled this incident.And that is why I think there is a genuine link, notwithstanding the deaths of two people.What do you think?

Well, I guess I largely agree with what you're saying.And I do think that, in some ways,of George Floyd...I think pretty clearly like, and Michael is right, there was a point where he was resisting, but by the time they had him down, he was subdued.There was no need to have their knee or leg on his neck for that long.And yes, I think it was a tragic situation.

And I think that the cops were, you know, did not handle that the right way.But to Michael's point, listen, if just say in the UK or in the United States of America, if there had been a situation where not a person who was committing a crime, a low level crime, and then had an incident with police after that.But just a black kid was walking down the street and a white guy stabbed him to death.And then the cops handcuffed the black dude while he was bleeding out and sided with the white dude who had just stabbed him to death.I don't think Mark would be up here saying, let's not make this a race issue.And I think that's the thing that's a little bit frustrating for guys like me and Michael Knowles who agree on everything.

My show will be coming to the Daily Wire next month.But look, the point is this, it's not only is it, this is how much it's a two -tiered system of justice that Michael didn't even mention.The Sikhs are the only ones who are allowed to carry these knives in public.You're telling me that your security agency, your government, has actually disarmed its own?There is one group of people who's allowed to have this weaponry and one who's not.And by the way, it's not Englishmen.

Hang on, hang on, hang on.It wasn't very ceremonial in this case, was it?Well, hang on, hang on.But just to be clear.No, but you're making it seem as if Sikhs are allowed to have weapons and no one else is. I'll bring you back in.Literally the case.

That's literally what the rule is.It's not literally the case.Let me just explain what the case is. I will tell you what the rule is.Mark, I will explain because actually it's my show last time I checked.So if you just let me do the talking for a second, which is that it is an interesting case because actually it is allowed for Sikhs to carry ceremonial knives in this way, in a way that it wouldn't be for me to do.same.

However, interestingly, it's pretty much the same rule in America, is our understanding.that you can do that as well.So we checked the Kirpan law in the USA.Carrying a kirpan is generally protected as an exercise of religion under the First Amendment, but is regulated by states and local knife laws and banned from federal facilities and airports.So there is a slight caveat there.

Yeah, but, Piers, we got something else that cancels out that problem, you know?

Well, they're called guns, yeah.Yeah, but let's not get me going on your gun rules, because we'll be here all night.

I'm just saying, listen, I know you're not going to agree with me on this, Pierce, but my advice to all Englishmen is that you find it to be your religious belief that you have a right to a handgun.

Well, the other way to do it is to go the way that France and Germany have gone, where they have actually banned Sikhs from carrying the kirpan, because they do think it creates a two -tier system in society, which I think is inarguable.The question is whether if you have it, and Bianca Nobile, who does History Uncensored for me, has done a very good explainer, which we'll include as part of this show tonight, about the history of the kirpan, about the five Ks that are part of the Sikh faith and so on, which is, it's not irrelevant, because the vast majority of Sikhs, of course, wear the kirpan and never do this kind of thing.And in fact, if you take the kirpan under British law out of its scabbard, then in that moment, it becomes a crime.So you can't actually take it out and brandish it or use it.It has to remain in its sheath.So I think it's complicated.

It's not as simple as it seems.But it does create, Dave, as you just touched on, it does create a two -tier system where if you're not a Sikh, you can't carry that knife in my country without breaking the law.But if you are, you can.And I'll miss a case, as was established in the court,this Sikh abused that right in the most grotesque manner possible.And it turned out he had a fetish for knives, he had them all over his house, his family did.

So, you know, this is one of these appalling situations where he's completely abused the system and the trust put in that system and the Sikh community.And his family considered that in their statement.Let me bring in Mujahid here.putting aside the issue of whether Sikhs should be allowed to carry the kirpan.And that will be, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if the UK follows the path of France and Germany and outlaws it so there is consistency with everyone in the country.It would seem to me to make sense to do that in light of what happened here.

But the link between what happened with George Floyd and what happened with Henry Novak, do you see an issue here with Jaha with the extraordinary fallout from what happened with George Floyd?in making institutions reach a place in their heads where they start to calculate things in a way that is actually fundamentally flawed.

So let me talk about the similarities, and maybe there can be some commonalities here, and we can unite.Number one, when there are victims who are saying, I can't breathe, maybe the police and maybe the rest of us should believe them.That's what happened here, where Henry Nowak, who was a young man, it's brutal.It's an absolutely disgusting tragedy.And I don't see anyone here villainizing Henry Nowak.I don't see anyone here valorizing or praising the police officer.

That's the difference here in the United States of America, that Michael Knowles' boss has tried to get a pardon for Derek Chauvin, the convicted murderer of George Floyd.I don't see anyone here saying, you know what, this police officer, he did the right thing.I don't see anyone villainizing Henry Nowak as they villainized George Floyd.But we could all probably agree on that the fact that, well, some of us can agree on that what happened in both those videos was tragic.disgusting, obscene.Secondly, I think all of us are saying the same thing, is that some of these police officers, they should be held accountable for their actions.

I believe there should be full investigation and this police officer should be questioned and asked why or why did you not believe a stabbed victim dying, bleeding man.Why were the last words that he heard is, I don't believe you mate, that is horrific.Third, and I think this is where we should listen to the words of Henry's father.I want to quote him.Henry's father said, quote, we want to use Henry's heartbreaking story to make change for the better.We do not want his death to create further division, hatred, or tension.

I want people to sit with that for a second.This is Henry's father.They just buried their son, who was killed in the most heinous way, and then the police, that one police officer, those two or three police officers did not believe him.He said, do not use and exploit and abuse his death to create division, hatred, or tension.That was the same thing that George Floyd's family said.Now, what's happening right now in England?

You know this, Piers.This is why I think this conversation is very dangerous.Right now, you have Nigel Farage, who listened to that, and he said the following.I suggest the rest of us respond to this with pure cold rage.You know what's happening right now in Southampton?Tommy Robertson, that fraud, I think you and I agree, complete fraud, criminal, racist, complete clown.

He's sitting there encouraging his hooligans to go after Muslims.The killer's not a Muslim.Now they're already in Southampton attacking police officers, aggressively trying to protest against all innocent sick people, even though it was one deranged sick man.What happened two years ago, Pierce?And this is why I want us to lower the temperature.You know this.

Probably Michael doesn't or Dave doesn't.Tommy Robinson, who was in Cyprus vacationing, this coward, released false information and blamed a young Muslim.It wasn't a Muslim killer.What happened is for the next month, in 29 cities, all these hooligans, all these white supremacists, all these people who are fans of Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson, what did they do, Pierce?They beat up police officers, injured 300 police officers.They attacked all innocent brown and black folks.

There was looting and rioting.You see the same thing happening right now.So maybe we should lower the temperature.Listen to Henry's father.Not have, I don't know, opportunists exploit this for their own agenda, for rage bait.I know Daily Wire is dying right now.

Maybe we can leave it at the last rites if anyone here is Catholic.Good luck, Michael.Dave, I would recommend not going to Daily Wire right now if you've seen the hemorrhaging of the money.But I digress.You do what you have to do.but maybe don't engage in these hate mongers.

Don't engage in these hate mongers.And look at what happened two years ago, Pierce.You saw this happen two years ago.Let's lower the temperature.

Well, the reason I try to cut in was we lost your sound as you explain what that was two years ago, which was an incident where an appalling incident where three young girls were killed by a deranged maniac who initially the reporting was that he had come over illegally on one of the small boats on the southern border of the UK.And that turned out to be completely untrue.And that fact, led to a lot of the rioting and disinformation that was doing the rounds.And just to explain what we couldn't hear you saying, that's why I was trying to cut in.But we got you back for the rest of it.Yeah, I mean, Mike O 'Neill, Tommy Robinson's an interesting case on this, because he's tied himself into quite a few knots with this story already.

I want to play what he said at the protest down in Southampton.Let's take a listen to this.

I've spoken about this for 20 years, I said you'll be a victim of a race gang, i .e.Pakistani Muslims will be beating up a white kid, the police will turn up, they jump on the white kids.Every time, I've seen it my whole life, they jump on the white kids.What the whole world has now seen in Henry's video is what we've seen.anyway.

It's a different treatment for white people compared to non -whites.And we've seen this spread through every single institution in our country.

Now, the start of that, which is just before that clip starts, he says, I've spoken about it for 20 years.I said you'll be a victim of a race gang.And then says, i .e., Pakistani Muslims.Now, Pakistani Muslims had nothing to do with this.

right and this is a classic Tommy Robinson play where he tries to smear Muslims over something they have nothing to do with at all everyone knows that and one of the reasons might be and I'll play a second clip here this is him talking about Sikhs several years ago If we need immigration for our ageing population to keep up with pensions, if that's the reason, then bring in Sikhs, bring in Hindus, bring in Filipinos, bring in people who will integrate, assimilate and work.All the history of Luton Town, this is now an Islamic town.

And if this were a Sikh town, would you have the same problem?

I wouldn't have a problem, no.

Tell me why.No, because the Sikh community integrate, assimilate, and they work very hard.There's no dominating gangs.They're not attacking our culture.In fact, they integrate and they become British.

Come to our event.Wait until you see the diversity of our crowd.

You'll see many Sikhs, many Hindus, many Persians, many Jews, many blacks, many, many, many, many, many.

And that may explain why he tried to turn the debate in the moment of the protests to Pakistani Muslims, because he'd been so supportive of the Sikh community.He now says those comments that we just played have been taken out of context as part of a bullshit narrative, and he says this.

Now, this is one rogue motherfucker within the Sikh community.Think of all the rapes every week, every week, by members of the Islamic community.Not just that, those quoting the Koran whilst committing acts of terrorism and jihad every week.

Pretty extraordinary man.and this is my problem with Robinson is I think he's just a massive Muslim hating grifter is that again what he's trying to frame there is well it's a one -off incident involving a Sikh because he knows he's on record defending the Sikh community, rightly, actually, based on what he said there.But his desperation to try and bring his wider anti -Islam, anti -Muslim rhetoric into this is laid bare once again.And again, this had nothing to do with any Muslim.This is problematic, isn't it?

Well, nobody's ever accused Tommy Robinson of being an Islamophile.And it's certainly the case that Muslims didn't have anything to do with the killing of Henry Novak.public response to that killing, the reason that the killing is so notable politically, not merely at the level of human tragedy, does certainly involve Pakistani Muslims.Is anybody seriously going to argue that Pakistani Muslims have not been involved in lots of crime over the years, lots of stabbings, and one of the other biggest political issues in the country, namely the grooming gangs, which we will point out long predate the George Floyd riots and the George Floyd killing.And so in this way, I actually don't think that American wokeness liberalism is totally responsible.

You know what Tommy Robinson never does?He never points out any violence by white people, ever, by white Christians.And yet the vast majority of crime in my country is still committed by white people.Now, obviously the proportion of the population is much higher, but actually he never, ever...I mean, this idea, for example, that only a Sikh has stabbed somebody to death.What happened was appalling, absolutely appalling.

But there will be a lot of knife crime up and down the country in the last week in this country.And I can pretty well guarantee the vast majority will not have been committed by Sikhs.right?But he will never, ever talk about any crimes committed by white people.And that, to me, is part of the problem.That is what's creating... a lot of the tensions is that he likes to create an impression that it's only the Pakistani Muslims committing all these crimes.

So even when there's a crime committed by a Sikh against a white English young teenager, he has to immediately deflect back to Muslims and Islam.

Well, Tommy Robinson doesn't talk about marginal tax rates either.I mean, in defense of Tommy, what he's talking about, his chief political issue is migration and the Islamification of the United Kingdom.And those are real political issues.Obviously, the British people care very much about it.They voted for the Brexit.They didn't get the Brexit, unfortunately.

They didn't get much of what they voted for.

Well, because the Brexit doesn't really exist in the way that we were sold.I mean, that's the right.It's been 10 years, and the truth is Brexit was sold to the country by a bunch of snake oil salesmen.

The Brexit, obviously, the voters did not get what they wanted.And so, the reason that the killing of Henry Novak has such political importance, I think this is the point we have to keep coming back to.It's not just because a lunatic Sikh stabbed a poor, innocent white boy.That's awful.Obviously, that doesn't indict all Sikhs.I don't even know that that's an argument to get rid of the ceremonial knife.

The reason that it has political import is because of the police response.Because what people saw was that the police were always giving deference to migrants.or children of migrants, over white people.They were siding with the criminal over the perpetrator.And we have seen that happen again and again and again.That's the story which predates George Floyd.

That's why I bring up the grooming gangs, is because the police looked the other way.There were so many reports of Pakistani grooming gangs who were abusing English girls.And that is true.

I mean, Marta Monhill, that is undeniably true.And so whatever I think of Tommy Robinson, there's no doubt he's been very vocal about the grooming gang scandal, the rape scandal.and it involved almost exclusively Pakistani, British Pakistani Muslim men committing these heinous crimes against young white English girls.That was what that scandal was.And at every tier of the establishment, if you like, from very small local up to the federal government, there was a consistent pattern of cover up, whether it involved law enforcement, politicians, local state officials or whatever.There was a sustained period of covering this up going over many, many years.

And that has why tensions in my country are so inflamed and it is undeniable that the scandal happened and the cover -up happened and so people like Tommy Robinson have entered a vacuum here where they can whip people up.My issue with what he's done here and the reason I played the clips is that he's tied himself into this ridiculous position where he's on record defending Sikhs and so to try and deflect he goes back to Muslims again but you know there's a lot of a lot of tension here which people like him are fomenting because it suits them, but you can't deny that there is an underlying cause.

So again, you said a few things that I think are worth responding to.First, if there is a Pakistani Muslim grooming gang slash scandal going on, then it should be addressed and people should be held accountable.I don't take issue with that.I think we can all agree on that.I think where we disagree, not necessarily you and I, but other people, is how that gets tied into this moment.It's the opportunism of taking this moment and using it to abuse or to beat up on or to scapegoat other groups.

That's where I take issue.I think it's a sort of disingenuous analogy or comparison to say, well, he's not talkingabout marginal tax rates either.If his primary agenda were tax policy and he were talking about the reasons and the sources of tax revenue.And he suddenly left out a big chunk, that would be an issue.Similarly, if you're talking about racial violence, if you're talking about racial unrest, if you're talking about all the things that make the racial landscape in the U .

K.what it is, I think you have to be honest about all the things.It would be like if in the United States I didn't talk about black people when I talk about crime or violence or poverty or these other things.And it isn't the whole story, but it has to be part of the story.And I think that it's a little odd to leave it out.Earlier, David said that, you know, If the tables were turned somehow, I wouldn't be denying that race matters here.

Again, to be clear, I never said that race didn't matter here.What I'm suggesting here is that there isn't a two -tiered system of justice where white people are on the wrong side of it.If, for example, the person in handcuffs bleeding out were a Jamaican immigrant, or were a black American who'd come over, or were a West African migrant.I don't think that they would have been treated any differently.The issue here, as Pierce pointed out at the beginning, was a level of deference to the claim made by the Sikh that something happened to him.And I don't think that's the worst thing.

If somebody says, hey, I was just the victim of a racial attack, I understand why police may even be more sensitive to that right now.But you have to listen to the person in handcuffs bleeding out.But I think we'd have to be living in a bizarre world to believe that if the person in handcuffs were black, they would have been trusted and listened to more.There's no history in any Western country— Mark, are you kidding me?Whether it's the United States, whether it's Europe—I'm not, but just allow me to finish the point.There is no history in the history of policing.

where—that shows that black suspects in handcuffs who are beaten up or bleeding out have been believed or trusted or shown extraordinary deference by law enforcement.I think the issue—I think it's one thing to point out the over—andinvestment in the statement of the Sikh gentleman, but I don't think it's honest or realistic to suggest that only a white guy would be ignored and neglected in handcuffs.There's just no - Mark, okay, hypothetical here.

The guy who's been stabbed five times and is bleeding out on the ground saying, I can't breathe, is a Sikh man.And the guy who's claiming that he wasn't really stabbed and there was some racial incident is a white guy.Let's say the roles were exactly reverse, not to go to some trite white guy, racial political nonsense, but I guess it's illustrative here.If the roles were reversed in this situation, you seriously believe that the police would not have acted any differently?

I seriously believe in this counterfactual hypothetical.A very simple one that you brought up.If the complainant Yeah, yeah, agreed.I'm saying all of them are.I'm not taking a high ground here.I'm just stipulating the same thing you are.

If the complainant is a white guy and the person in handcuffs bleeding out is black, there's a whole history in the United States and in the UK of this happening.Or Sikh, in this case.Sikh, in this case, in the UK.Yes, I'm accepting the terms of your hypothetical.I'm saying yes.I don't believe the police operate any differently.

It's not because - I got a bridge in London to sell you, Mark.

I got a bridge in London to sell you.Ridiculous.

That's great.But allow me to tell you the reason why, since you asked me.The reason is because I think that we have a problem with policing.We don't do thorough investigations.I think police are too reactionary.I think whether the person is black, white, red, or yellow, we don't respond properly.

That's not to say that all races get treated the same, but I think there's a fundamental problem here.But again, finally, there's no evidence that black people get treated better by police.Or brown people.Let me bring in the others.

Yeah, Bajaja, you want to say something?Well, Pierce, yeah, I want to talk about double standards.I want to remind everyone what Henry's father said again.We do not want his death to create further division, hatred, or tension.Nigel Farage said, I want us to respond with pure cold rage.Nigel Farage of Reform UK used the word grifter, and I think that's a really good word.

Grifter, exploiters, people like him and Toby Robinson using and exploiting this heinous strategy to cause further division and hate.They're cosplay crusaders.They're wealthy men.They're not going to get their hands dirty.They're not there with the hooligans, but they're inciting this mob.You know what Nigel Farage said when there was a white cop in England, a Metropolitan police officer, his name was Wayne Cousins.

He kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard.You know what Nigel Farage did when it was a white male cop who kidnapped and murdered a woman?He on his own released a five minute video saying, hey, hey, hey, you can't blame all men and cops.Come on now.This was a one off.It just happens to be one bad male cop.

Don't blame all cops.Don't blame all men.That same Nigel Farage.The day that Henry's father said, do not use his death.to create further division, hatred, or tension, said, oh, because it's a brown killer?Respond with pure cold rage.

And it's really interesting.No, it's because it's not a one -off, Wajahat.That's why.Wait, wait.It's really interesting that Michael Knowles of the failing Daily Wire, the world's smallest violin, Michael, good luck.You'll land up, I'm sure.

It's amazing.My paychecks keep coming in.The predictions of our demise never seem to come true.You've talked a lot.Go on, go on, Wajahat.Yeah.

You said this, and I hope people play this clip.In defense of Tommy, you said, in defense of Tommy Robinson, Tommy Robinson, fraudster, hooligan, thug, violent instigator.Do you know two years ago in Southampton when he incited this mob to go against all black people, brown people, immigrants, citizens, Muslims?Do you know that there were neo -Nazis there?Do you know there were white supremacists there?Do you know that they beat up cops?

And do you know whose name they were chanting, Michael?tommy tommy tommy so you go ahead and defend tommy robinson and you go ahead and defend i think i will yeah i think i'll defend both of them please please do good for it and rage farm and maybe you can buy another rolex rolex maybe just one response pierce because you you bring up

this point and you say it's outrageous.You know, Nigel claimed in this kind of extreme fringe case that it was just a one -off and you can't blame all men and blame all cops.And so why not here?The reason why not here is because it is not a one -off for the police and the political authorities to give undue preference and deference to migrants and to children of migrants and to people on racial grounds.That's not a one -off.Well, that's the point I want to make.

All the data proves otherwise, Michael, but you are exploiting this and you are using his death.You are using his death to create tension.

Let me bring in Dave Smith.

You're just grifters.They're all race grifters.

The other point to all this, Dave, is something I touched on earlier, which is whether the fallout from the George Floyd incident and killing, whether that has had a bad effect on institutions in the way they now deal with incidents like we saw with Henry Novak.Now, in the UK, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, IOPC, is now reviewing a 2025 guidance document, so last year, from a National Police Chiefs Council, which says its goal is producing equality of policing outcomes.It doesn't mean treating everyone the same.or being colorblind.Now, Police Minister Sarah Jones says the document gives the wrong impression.This particular document is a sort of values document.

It's quite a short document.I don't think it forms the basis of training or police activity.It is an official MPCC document, yes, and it's being reviewed.We think the language is wrong and gives the wrong impression.Now, the MPCC text reads exactly.Our commitment to racial equality means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be radicalised

with the aim of reducing harm.It does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind, brackets racial equality.Now, they can say now that it's being misconstrued and taken the wrong way, whatever.But it is quite possible that this is filtered through police forces up and down the country and that they've been effectively instructed not to treat everybody the same.not to be colorblind, to be aware of people's racial ethnicity in incidents like this.And that is why they were moved in the moment to believe the Sikh when he came up with this nonsense story and why they didn't believe the white guy leading to death.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but I'm saying it is a possibility given this guidance and that the guidance wouldn't have existed, I don't think, without the George Floyd fallout.hence the line that I think is quite possible to be drawn.

Yeah, well, I mean, look, Pierce, you know, if you just since you bring up the George Floyd fallout, I mean, what you're talking about was like the worst riots of my lifetime, billions of dollars in property damage.There were dozens of people who were murdered in the George Floyd riots, and there were hundreds of vicious assaults and just terrorized civilians all around this country.And largely what the police did was stand down and allow it to happen.Now, there were, of course, because the police always give you the worst of both worlds.There were also some examples examples where they threw, you know, smoke grenades into crowds of peaceful protesters, but they didn't stop the actual violent rioters.And look, again, as we were talking about before, no one, certainly not me or Michael on this panel, are saying that this is indicative that it's all Sikhs or that most Sikhs are violent like this.

But again, look at the facts on the ground.You have one class of people whoare allowed to carry this weapon on them.You have another class of people who are totally disarmed and not allowed them to defend themselves.And in the moment, when there's an accusation of bigotry, that's enough to get everybody to freeze and go, ooh, we better err on the side of not being the bigots, because they know, as we've learned over the last 15 years, that that's what's going to get your face in the paper.That's what's going to go super viral.

That's what will actually lead to violent riots.and things along that nature.And to your point, Pierce, everyone should know this already by now, but as soon as you start thinking of equality of outcomes, you're an enemy of justice, because there's no such thing as collectivism and justice.If you're thinking at all, in any part of your mind, as a function of police work, that The overall result of this has to be that different groups end up being prosecuted in the same way.The only thing you should be thinking about is the justice in the immediate short run.And there's absolutely, egalitarianism is just such a revolt against nature, a revolt against common sense.

The idea that every single group should end up at the same end goal is ridiculous.It's like expecting, it's like running a race.It's like, no, one second.It's like running a race.Hold on.Fascism is better, right?

Hold on, let me just get my last sentence out.Let him finish his point.Let me finish the sentence.It's like running a race with the expectation that everyone will finish at the exact same time.That's not how human beings work.We end up in different places.

But I think the problem, and Mark Lamont Hill, I want to move on to something else before we finish, but When the police are giving out official guidance from their authorities, that it does not mean treating everyone the same.I'm sorry, but as someone who lives in the UK, I'm appalled that any of thethe police forces in my country would be led to think that we don't treat everyone the same.The starting point for justice at any level should be that everybody is treated the same, surely.

So, my response to that, first, is that the expectation from those of us who've been doing this work as activists, as organizers, is to have the same outcome, not in, you know, judicial decisions, not in terms of jury verdicts, but in terms of treatment, meaning that every single one of us should have the same...But that's what that says.

Treated the same.

You would agree, right?So, Piers, two statements were made.One by statement.Piers, two things were said.One by David, one by you.I'm addressing David's point first, and then I'm going to respond to yours.

I'll do them both in 20 seconds.The outcome of The outcome that David, we're talking about isn't that everyone ends up the same.Obviously, if I commit a crime and you don't, or vice versa, we shouldn't have the same outcome.But if we commit the same crime, we should get the same sentence.We should have the same due process.We should be arrested in the same manner, et cetera, et cetera.

That's what we're talking about.So the idea here is not that we all run a race and cross the finish line at the same time.It's that we all get timed by the same stopwatch.Pierce, to your point, I think everyone should be treated equally.We do have to consider context, though.For example, if I live in a city where there are a lot of anti -Semitic hate crimes, I would expect to see a heavier police force in the Jewish neighborhood than in the neighborhood where there aren't a lot of hate crimes happening.

As an example, that's not treating everybody the same.Treating everybody the same literally would mean every neighborhood gets exactly the same police force.

I would say they could go a long way to solving a lot of the problems around this case if rather than saying it does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind, they revise that to say, It does mean treating everyone the same and not being colorblind, right?In other words, you should treat everyone the same, whatever their color is.

But people aren't treated the same.No, but they should be.We should all agree.We should all agree they should be.But they're not.We agree.

They should be.Exactly.They should be, but historically they aren't.That's the problem.

But if that's the problem, if that's the problem, then your comment would be that there shouldn't be obstacles in people's way, or people shouldn't be treated different.You wouldn't make a comment about outcomes.Outcomes means that no matter what happened in between there, we want them finishing in the same place.And I'm sorry, but some groups are more criminal than other groups.

What are you talking about?David, first, you ignored the point that I made, which was, again, the issue here is not outcomes irrespective of how people behave.The issue here is outcome in terms of how they are treated in the system.I literally responded to it just a moment ago.

That's not what an outcome is.

That's not what an outcome is.No, I heard you respond to it.No, David, David, David, no, David, David, David, David, that's not, that's not true.I was part of the plan.I was part of the organizing committee for the planning document.We were very specific in talking about outcomes in terms of how people perceive the process of going through the criminal justice system, how people perceive or are factually treated with regard to access to a lawyer.

These are the things we're talking about.Outcome doesn't just mean the disposition of a criminal case.That's not what we were talking about when we organized the document.I'm literally telling you.It's not about - Okay, but then - No, there are multiple - When you organize - There are multiple outcomes.No, David, let me finish my thought like you asked me to let you finish your thought.

There are multiple outcomes that we're talking about.You're taking one specific idea of outcome and making that a straw man. I'm telling you that the thing you're talking about, I agree with you.No one should get a different outcome in terms of criminal prosecution or arrest based on whether they're black or not.If I commit a crime, I should have the same outcome as you, irrespective of what your race is.We agree.We don't have to argue about that silly point.

I'm talking about something different.

Ma, just to come back to this.If there is official guidance that says it does not mean treating everyone the same or being the same.Surely, actually, in the system that ultimately we would all like to see, we would treat everybody the same and we would indeed be colorblind.If those two things happened and genuinely happened, that would actually be racial equality utopia, because nobody would be adversely judged according to their skin colour and everyone would be treated the same.Now, I don't for a moment suggest that is what's been happening, right?I don't.

Of course.And this we're seeing, with George Floyd we saw it one way, with Henry we're seeing it another way, but actually, ultimately, if the new guidance just reversed that statement, then we might go some way to getting somewhere.No.I know you don't think so, but I think we would.

The statement is in response to the realities on the ground.That's all I'm saying.I know, but actually...And it's funny because the right wing, when it comes to racial profiling, the right is always like, wait a minute, the black people are committing all the crimes.Why don't we put the police there?Why don't we search the black people?

They say, well, let's not be colorblind.Let's acknowledge who's doing the crimes.And yet somehow now we want to be colorblind.

Okay.It's a double standard.It's a grift.And just listen to Henry's father.I want to say it again.Listen to Henry's father.

Anyone who's watching in the UK.notice the people who are exploiting this for racial divisions, and then look what happened two years ago.Did it make your life better when there were riots?Did it make your life better?Did it help your quality of life?

Benjamin Netanyahu fucking crazy because I think we can't ignore that little bombshell that dropped this week.Michael Knowles, some extraordinary stuff.Axios reported that Trump lost his temper with Netanyahu over specifically Israel's escalation in Lebanon and reportedly said to him, you're fucking crazy.You'd be in prison if it wasn't for me. I'm saving your ass.Everybody hates you now.Everybody hates Israel because of this.

with sort of chilling predictability, sources from the Israeli government immediately said this was all complete fiction.And then today we had Donald Trump saying this.

He said, are you effing crazy?What are you effing doing?I helped you stay out of jail.Is that true?Did you speak to him in those terms?I did.

I wouldn't say angry.I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon.

There we actually heard from the President of the United States' own mouth that in fact it was true, which was hardly surprising because clearly it had been briefed to Axios from probably President Trump.But notwithstanding that, it was quite interesting to me that Israel's first response from the government was to try and dismiss it all as a bag of lies until Trump just ignored that and said it's all true.But there's a wider point here, of course, which is this increasing flashpoint about Iran and the fallout and about what Israel's doing in Lebanon at the same time.And I want to play you a clip from this show, Michael Knowles, a few weeks ago.

I'm not freaking out until week six.He said it would take five weeks.I'm going to freak out on week six.I don't care how my oil futures are doing.He has a very good record.He's the only president in the last quarter century on whose watch Vladimir Putin hasn't invaded a country.

His attack on Iran over the summer was excellent.His decapitation of Venezuela took 88 minutes.He dropped the Moab.He killed Soleimani.He's just done very, very well on foreign policy, which is why for now I say let him cook.

Well, we've let him cook now for 13 weeks.You said you would be freaking out at week six.You're showing remarkable calm, Michael Knowles, for a man who ought to be hyperventilating now, given what an absolute quagmire of a mess it actually is.Do you accept now that my own view about this from early on, including in that debate, which was this was heading into just a gigantic mess with no easy end game or win, was probably more accurate.Pierce, don't you know this is my freaking out.

I have very low blood pressure.I keep my cool all the time.But what's funny is from the beginning, before the war started, on the very day we were broadcasting, the day that the war began, and consistently ever since then, I have not changed my view one bit, which is that had I been on the NSC, nobody invited me, I would have made the arguments against the war.Not because I don't think the Iran regime has it coming, not because I don't think it could be in America's strategic interest to change things in Iran, but because I didn't think there was a reasonable probability of regime change there.Maybe we can set back the nuclear program.I guess that's a worthy goal.

But from the standpoint of proportionality, I didn't know that the goods to be achieved in a major war in Iran were really worth the costs.That was my position before, at the time of the strike, and afterwards.word.If you go all the way and you push for regime change, one, it might not work.Two, it might end up being worse than it was before.And three, there's absolutely no political appetite for it whatsoever.

And then the only other alternative is a deal that probably people are going to be unsatisfied with.But from the beginning, I've pushed for the deal.I just don't see how a major regime change war is going to work here.And so what you're seeing with President Trump and Netanyahu, where you say, did he really?Did he not?It's helpful to the White House for that news to get out.

Then the Israelis downplay it.so now I kind of believe the White House.But then Trump admits it, and so what is it?Really, even that situation hasn't changed, which is the U .S.and Israeli interests.

have diverged at this point on Iran.Israel does not want an end to the war.Israel wants regime change.Iran is a greater threat to Israel than to the United States.Israel's support is collapsing in the United States, even among Republicans.So I think the Israelis are looking at this as the last chance to really give them hell in Iran.

And if I were the Israeli prime minister, I wouldn't want a peace deal either.But if I'm the American president, I want a peace deal.I think that's probably the best case for the American interest, given where we are right now.That's going to irritate the Israelis, their allies, our interests line a lot of the time.Here I think they're diverging and that's why you're seeing these two men yell at each other.

I think that's the important part of the story.

I would say that the likelihood is that Donald Trump will get out of this war sooner rather later because of the catastrophic political damage it's causing, not just to him personally, but to the Republicans.They've got the midterms coming and so on.What's very hard to see is how he's going to claim any kind of Pyrrhic victory if the Iranian regime remains in place, as seems very likely, with the Ayatollah's son replacing his killed father.You have the IRGC clearly still in a firm grip on the country.No popular uprising at all of the kind that Netanyahu had promised Trump would happen if they decapitated the leadership.And the Iranians, even worse, perhaps, than any of this, is despite suffering a lot of damage to their military capacity, which is undeniable, they have managed to turn the Strait of Hormuz into perhaps the most powerful weapon of all.

And they've been holding the entire world over an economic barrel, where 20 % of the world's energy goes through, including fertilizer, gas, and oil.And every time anyone tries to put more pressure on them, they fire off some rockets into the air.state neighbors, which causes them untold havoc and economic damage as well.I don't see how this ends well for President Trump, and I cautioned that from day one.And I fear that he's going to have to get out of this in a way which, if you compare it to, say, the Obama deal that he's always ridiculed, it's going to end up being, I would imagine, something that's very hard to deny will be an ignominious retreat and failure.

As a result of Donald Trump's failed war of choice, we have replaced and killed the older, dying Khamenei with a younger, more radicalized Khamenei.The Strait of Hormuz was open.Now it's closed.Twelve servicemen have died.Thousands of Iranians and Lebanese have been killed.Our Gulf allies now are retreating and seeking new alliances.

Our bases are under attack.The price of gas has gone up to $4 .50.And according to the Trump administration, it's going to keep going up to greatest military might, cannot force Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz.So then he goes with his tail tucked between his legs to China to get it to open up.And China said, nope.He has his allies try to open up.

They say, nope.He already has a black eye.He's lost.This is the only way out.The only way out is for Donald Trump to say, I made a mistake.I'm the only president in the past 47 years.

No Republican president, no Democratic president was dumb and reckless and stupid enough to follow Israel in this quagmire.Trump was the only person who chose to do it.And as we know from New York Times reporting, even the people around him, Marco Rubio, Coats, J .D.Vance said this wasa mistake. But

But Benjamin Netanyahu came in and buttered him up and Donald Trump said, OK, Benjamin Netanyahu, do what you want.And then you had warmongers and Zionist fanatics and warthogs like Ben Shapiro who went all in for this war.And I'm going to say this because I just listened to what Michael said.There's a great line from Born Identity.Look at what they make you give.Young conservatives, look at Michael right now.

Look at what they make you give.For the sake of his boss, Ben Shapiro, he still goes all in on this failed war.

world's smallest violin playing for the Daily Wire.Ever since I began to criticize the Israeli government, there was a complete drawbridge between Ben Shapiro and I. You've had me on too many times, Piers.As a guy who prides himself as being the king of free speech, and I don't think it's fair to judge Michael here by any issues with Ben Shapiro, but I do think it's interesting to me that that he would do that to someone like me when I'd always got on well with him, but also that he's gone very quiet recently about this war.

Well, Piers, if it makes you feel better, Ben has been not texting me back for long before I criticized the Israeli government.So I got ears on you on that.Wajahat's making a point, though, that's totally ridiculous.He's saying I'm all in on the war when I've said before, during, and after, or in the present moment, that I was very skeptical of the war.I would have argued against the war.I didn't think that you had a reasonable probability of regime change.

And so I would argue for restraint.I don't know what Wajihat's point is about saying this is entirely about Israel.It's obviously not entirely about Israel.

line, though, Michael, where you say, for now, I say, let him cook, can we all agree that perhaps the meal hasn't come out of the oven very satisfactorily?

Now we're just waiting for dessert.I hope there's a cherry on top of this, Sunday.

But I agree with you, it's very hard to do that.Let me give the other two guys a chance to come on this.There won't be.Just quickly, if you may.Dave Smith, we've talked about this a lot.But this whole splinter now between Trump and Netanyahu I think was entirely predictable.

Because, as Michael said, they have parallel objectives here.I don't think that the Israelis want to have any sort of peace deal with Iran that leaves the regime in place or leaves them with their...We haven't even touched on enriched uranium.None of that has been voluntarily handed over, and it's not going to be.Why would they?They've got all the leverage.

To quote somebody in the White House Oval Office, they got all the cards.They got all the cards.And there's an irony to that, because militarily, Dave, it's inarguable.The Americans and Israelis militarily have caused a lot of damage to the Iranian military, but they haven't won the asymmetric war, which has turned out to be more important.

No, they've been destroyed in the asymmetric war.Not only haven't won it, this is going to go down as one of the biggest defeats in US military history.And it's different than even our previous defeats where essentially we just got into prolonged conflicts, but okay, we can't really overthrow the Viet Cong or we can't really overthrow the Taliban, so eventually we leave.This is going to be different where we're going to transform Iran into a global power.Let me just be clear here.I don't believe the Axios reporting and I don't think other people should too.

If you check Axios' track, record throughout this war.It's just been a ridiculous, the most cartoonish version of a mouthpiece for the administration.In fact, Piers, as you recall, it was way back last Thursday that they reported that the deal's been finished and is just awaiting President Trump's signature.

Well, I think that certain members of Axios have a direct line to the president.

is just awaiting President Trump's signature.thing happened when he wanted the off ramp.They started bombing the crap out of Iran.That was the famous time when he said all of them don't know what the fuck they're doing out there.So listen, the bottom line here, Pierre says.None of you guys are condemning this in strong enough language.

This was the most retarded decision a president has ever made in my lifetime.In 2026, after the entire failed global war on terrorism, you're going to say that's what America needs?Another regime change, unwinnable war in the Middle East?I mean, come on.We had national consensus that that was the last thing we wanted.And Trump was the candidate who ran on the explicit promise of no more of these wars.

Unfortunately, Michael, I can't.I've got to give Mark a final, very quick say about this, just to finish things off.

While I wouldn't share David's use of the R word there, I do share his repudiation of this war.I think that it's obvious that this isn't just, as opposed to what the media's representing, this isn't just a failed bromance between Netanyahu and Trump.This is, as Michael said, a divergence in U .S.interests and in Israeli interests that I hope will finally, finally, after, since the beginning of the Kennedy administration, finally get the United States out of this bizarre, unhealthy, unhelpful, disastrous, and unethical relationship with the state of Israel.Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, as he aligns more and more with the far right, like Itamar Ben -Gavir and others, He has an investment in the doctrine of permanent war.

He needs Israel to be in a permanent state of war for his own interest to advance.which is what Trump was saying in terms of saying, I want to keep him out of prison.So Israel's interest is to keep fighting.The US isn't.And so we have to separate here.We have to let it go.

And what is clear, what is clear?What is clear is that polling all suggests that Israel is getting more and more globally unpopular, not least in America.And that is a heartbreaking situation.

As they should.

For Israel and for Israelis.This is happening because of the actions of their leader and their government.Every time I now see Ben -Gavir or Smodrich open their mouths, they make Israel more globally unpopular.And how they are still members of a government in Israel is completely and utterly beyond me.They are complete psychopaths.And so, you know, anyone who thinks otherwise prefers to side with psychopaths, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, we've got to leave it there.Thank you very much indeed for an excellent panel.The right of Sikh people in Britain to legally carry a ceremonial dagger is now under review.The history of why they do it and why they're allowed to do it is a fascinating story, which is about to become a divisive debate.Bianca Novello, host of History Uncensored, explains how we got here.

Henry Novak's killer, Vikram Digwa, was carrying two blades, a small traditional kirpan, the Sikh article of faith, concealed under his clothing, and a second, much larger, 21 -centimetre dagger, so eight inches, worn openly.And it was that second blade, the external one, the larger one, that killed Henry Novak.So the word kirpan comes from two words in Punjabi, kirpa, meaning grace or mercy, and an, meaning honour or defence.It's translated differently.It's not a knife in an ordinary sense.It's one of the five articles of faith, the five Ks that every initiated Sikh is required to wear at all times.

So others include Kesh, uncut hair, Kara, a steel bracelet.And they're not optional.They're obligations of faith commanded by Guru Gobind Singh.in 1699 when he founded the collective of initiated Sikhs.Now the kurpan is typically a curved single edge blade, usually between three to six inches long, worn in a wooden sheath on a strap called a ghatra, most often under clothing, and the Sikh code of conduct prescribes no fixed length for that blade.Now the UK Sikh Federation says the kurpan symbolizes dignity, courage, a solemn duty to protect the vulnerable and stand against injustice.

Sikh organisations in the UK have been emphatic that any blade carried with violent intent or used offensively ceases by definition in their view to be a kirpan at all.So in Sikh tradition, the 17th century was marked by conflict with Mughal power and the persecution of religious freedom.There was this guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru, who was executed on the orders of a Mughal emperor in 1675.And he's revered by Sikhs for sacrificing his life to defend freedom of conscience.So his son, Guru Gobind Singh, later founded the Khalsa in 1699, the community of initiated Sikhs whose visible articles of faith included the kirpan.So that embodied the duty to defend the vulnerable, protect the freedoms of others when power is being used against them.

And obviously sacred blades exist.in Buddhism, Hinduism, other faiths as well and they often represent protection, justice, the cutting away of evil, a duty to defend the innocent.Now the only knife that you can carry in the UK without any justification at all is a folding non -locking pocket knife with a blade of three inches so that's 6 .7 centimetres or less than that.Anything beyond that requires a lawful excuse.So that could include carrying a blade for work, if you're a carpenter or a chef, national costume, for example, you can carrya Scottish geandu, a small knife traditionally put in a guy's stocking as part of Highland dress, or for religious reasons.

And that religious defense for possessing Sikh ceremonial blades existed under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.Then the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019 clarified and extended protections around possessing and ceremonial supply of certain larger Sikh swords.Obviously, some swords like ninja swords, straight blades between 14 and 24 inches, are banned.So in Henry Novak's case, the court heard that digwa belonged to the Nihang tradition.in which some Sikhs carry a second visible blade.So the judge said it was possible that Digwa had a legal reason for possessing the larger dagger when he encountered Henry, but that any protection ended when he drew it and attacked an unarmed 18 -year -old.

Hence why Digwa was convicted not only of murder but of possessing the bladed article in public.Now, I've done martial arts weapons training for over 14 years in the UK, and under UK law, I can legally transport to and from a licensed club swords like a katana or weapons like nunchucks, as long as the travel is direct, the weapon is not visible and the purpose is training or reenactment.But the law doesn't permit me to carry any of those swords for display or self -defense.And I say that because it underscores that, as the religious defence does, that when it comes to many blades in the UK, it's the purpose and the context that determine the legality and not the blade itself.

In return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.And we'll do it all for free.Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.