The Law Is Not On Your Side

Summary

The video script discusses the disparity in the UK's justice system, highlighting how the application of laws is inconsistent and politically influenced. It contrasts the lenient sentencing of a man who sent death threats with the harsher punishment of a woman for a less direct threat. The script also critiques the selective enforcement of laws during protests, the misuse of the Equality Act, and the potential for further legal measures to unfairly target certain groups, emphasizing that the authority behind law, not the law itself, often determines outcomes.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script discusses the limitations of relying on the law for protection, emphasizing that the application of the law is more critical than the law itself.
• 🏛️ It mentions several organizations like ADF International and the Free Speech Union that champion rights and liberties, suggesting a complex landscape of legal advocacy.
• 📰 The script contrasts two cases involving different responses to threats, highlighting potential biases in the justice system's application of laws.
• 👮‍♀️ It critiques the UK's justice system for what is perceived as a two-tier approach to justice, with different outcomes based on the context and perceived identity of the individuals involved.
• 💬 The podcast episode touches on the role of the media, particularly The Guardian, in shaping public perception of legal cases and the context in which they occur.
• 📈 The script references a report by Policy Exchange on the cost and impact of pro-Palestine protests, suggesting a broader economic and social impact of such events.
• 🏙️ It discusses the chilling effect of legal actions on free speech and assembly, particularly in the context of protests and the policing of these events.
• 📖 The script mentions the potential for the misuse of legislation like the Equality Act, suggesting that it can be used to favor certain groups over others.
• 👩‍⚖️ It points out inconsistencies in how the law is applied, with examples of how certain views are protected while others are not, based on the prevailing political climate.
• 📢 The podcast concludes with a call to recognize that the authority interpreting and applying the law has a significant impact on justice, rather than the law's text alone.

Q & A

What is the main theme discussed in the podcast segment?

The main theme discussed is the perceived injustice and bias in the application of the law, particularly in the UK, highlighting how the state's application of laws and the justice system can be influenced by political and social contexts rather than being impartial.

What organizations are mentioned as champions of rights and liberties?

ADF International and the Free Speech Union are mentioned as organizations that champion rights and liberties.

What is 'Islander magazine' and why is it mentioned in the script?

Islander magazine is a publication produced by the podcast's team, mentioned to promote their work and to announce the release of its second issue, which includes essays from various writers.

Why is the case of Nabil Arif mentioned in the podcast?

Nabil Arif's case is mentioned to illustrate the perceived two-tier justice system where he received a relatively short sentence for sending abusive messages and a death threat, which the podcast suggests is a lighter punishment compared to others in similar situations.

What contrast is drawn between the cases of Nabil Arif and Julie Sweeney?

The contrast is drawn to show a disparity in sentencing where Nabil Arif received a 12-week sentence for a direct death threat, while Julie Sweeney was jailed for about 2 years for a less direct threat, suggesting different standards of justice applied.

What is the significance of the Israel-Gaza conflict mentioned in relation to the death threats?

The Israel-Gaza conflict is mentioned to provide context for the abusive messages sent by Nabil Arif, suggesting it might have influenced his actions and the subsequent leniency in his sentencing.

What is the 'Policy Exchange' report discussed in the podcast?

The 'Policy Exchange' report is a document discussing the costs and impacts of the pro-Palestine protests in London, including the economic burden on the city and the police, and recommendations for changes in protest regulations.

Why does the podcast criticize the recommendation for a 'Protest Commission for London'?

The podcast criticizes the recommendation for a 'Protest Commission for London' because it suggests that such a commission, appointed by political figures, would be biased and not truly independent, potentially leading to selective enforcement of protest regulations.

What is the criticism regarding the application of the Equality Act as discussed in the podcast?

The criticism is that the Equality Act is being selectively applied to protect certain characteristics and beliefs favored by the state over others, particularly highlighting the case of an individual whose English nationalist views were not protected under the act.

How does the podcast segment conclude regarding the role of authority in the law?

The podcast concludes that the authority applying the law has a greater impact than the law itself, suggesting that the law is not inherently on the side of the people but is subject to the biases and interests of those in power.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Legal Challenges and Censorship

The speaker discusses the complexities of relying on the law for protection of free speech, especially in the context of arrests over memes. They highlight the role of organizations like ADF International and the Free Speech Union in championing rights and liberties. Despite some legal victories, the speaker emphasizes that the application of the law is as crucial as the law itself. The discussion transitions into the production of 'Islander' magazine, which includes essays from various writers. The magazine is available for purchase, and the speaker humorously comments on the editor's hard work and personal hygiene. The speaker also mentions new merchandise and the potential for it to become a limited edition.

05:02

🔍 Inconsistent Justice and Media Bias

This section contrasts the different legal outcomes for two individuals based on the nature of their threats. Nabil Arif, who sent death threats to Jess Phillips, was sentenced to only 12 weeks in jail, which the speaker finds lenient. In contrast, Julie Sweeney received a much harsher sentence for a less direct threat. The speaker criticizes the media, particularly The Guardian, for its biased reporting that contextualizes the threats differently based on the perceived victim. The speaker argues that the justice system and media are influenced by broader political contexts, leading to a two-tier justice system and biased reporting.

10:04

🏛️ Policing Protests and Legal Recommendations

The speaker discusses a report by Policy Exchange on the costs and impacts of pro-Palestine protests in London, highlighting the financial burden on the police and the disruption to everyday life and business. The report includes recommendations for the government to establish a protest commission for London and to amend legislation to increase the notification period for protests and to protect national infrastructure. The speaker criticizes these recommendations as politically motivated and likely to be applied selectively, favoring certain groups over others based on political alignment rather than the principle of law.

15:05

🏛️ The Selective Application of the Equality Act

The speaker critiques the Equality Act, arguing that it is used selectively to protect certain characteristics and beliefs over others. They discuss a case where an individual, Mr. S Thomas, claimed discrimination based on his English nationalist views but was denied protection under the Equality Act. The speaker points out the inconsistency in how the act is applied, suggesting that it serves to favor certain values over others, particularly those aligned with the state's preferences. They also mention an attempt to amend the act to protect afro hair, which they view as a frivolous use of the law.

20:06

📜 The Return of Non-Crime Hate Incidents

The speaker warns of the return of non-crime hate incidents, which were previously ruled unlawful due to their recording practices by the College of Policing. Despite new legislation and guidance, the number of such incidents recorded has increased. The speaker is critical of this development, arguing that it can lead to unfair treatment and discrimination against individuals based on unfounded claims. They also mention a future scenario where describing someone's hair could be considered a hate incident, illustrating their concern over the potential misuse of such regulations.

Keywords

💡ADF International

ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organization that specializes in defending religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family. In the context of the video, ADF International is mentioned as one of the champions of rights and liberties, suggesting that they are an organization that viewers might look towards for support in legal battles related to free speech and other civil liberties.

💡Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union is an organization that advocates for freedom of speech and expression. In the video, it is grouped with ADF International as entities that viewers might turn to when their rights are infringed upon, indicating the video's theme of the importance of free speech and the challenges faced in its defense.

💡Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act is a piece of legislation that incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The video discusses the act in the context of using it as a tool for legal battles, suggesting that while it may offer some protections, its effectiveness is limited by who is applying it.

💡Equality Act

The Equality Act is UK legislation that provides a framework to protect individuals from discrimination. In the video, the act is mentioned as a potential tool for legal recourse, but the speaker expresses skepticism about its effectiveness due to the selective application of the law.

💡Two-tier Justice System

The term 'two-tier justice system' refers to a situation where different groups within society are subject to different standards of justice. The video uses this concept to critique the UK's legal system, arguing that the application of justice is inconsistent and biased, as illustrated by contrasting cases of individuals receiving different sentences for similar offenses.

💡Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public prosecution authority in England and Wales. The video discusses the CPS in the context of its role in sentencing decisions, suggesting that the service's decisions are influenced by political and social factors rather than just the letter of the law.

💡Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange is a British think tank that conducts research and advocates for various policy changes. In the video, a report by Policy Exchange on the costs and impacts of pro-Palestine protests is mentioned, highlighting the economic and social effects of such protests on the UK.

💡Non-crime Hate Incidents

Non-crime hate incidents are actions that, while not criminal, are perceived as motivated by hatred towards a particular group. The video criticizes the recording of such incidents by the police, arguing that it can lead to unfair treatment and discrimination against certain groups, as it may be used to target individuals based on their beliefs rather than their actions.

💡Public Order Act

The Public Order Act is UK legislation that aims to maintain public order by prohibiting certain types of conduct, such as violent or threatening behavior. The video discusses potential amendments to this act, suggesting that changes could be used to restrict protests and further limit freedoms.

💡Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a UK body responsible for enforcing equality legislation and promoting human rights. The video mentions the commission in the context of its potential role in evaluating the impact of protests, indicating concerns about the commission's impartiality and its influence on legal and social outcomes.

Highlights

Discussion on the limitations of relying on the law for protection of rights and liberties.

Introduction of ADF International and the Free Speech Union as champions of rights.

Critique of the application of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.

Analysis of the two-tier justice system in the UK with specific legal cases.

Launch of Islander magazine issue two featuring essays from various writers.

Details on the pricing and availability of the new Islander magazine issue.

Announcement of new merchandise and its limited edition status.

Case study of Nabil Arif's sentencing for sending death threats.

Comparison of sentencing disparities between different cases involving threats.

Critique of the Guardian's reporting bias in the context of legal cases.

Discussion on the costs and impact of pro-Palestine protests in London.

Findings from a Policy Exchange report on the policing of protests.

Recommendations from the report for changes in protest regulations and policing.

Analysis of the selective application of the Equality Act in employment tribunals.

Proposal to protect afro hair under the Equality Act and its implications.

Return of non-crime hate incidents recording by the College of Policing.

Call to action for viewers to follow on Twitter for updates on content.

Transcripts

well everyone we often hear how the law

is supposedly on our side I think we

sort of comfort ourselves with that

anytime that you get arrested for a meme

um eventually there are champions of our

rights and Liberties like ADF

International the Free Speech Union who

say don't worry we will win out in the

end and they have someone some important

legal cases but even if you do appeal to

the tools of the enemy like the Human

Rights Act the CHR or the equality act

even if they do net us some wins like

realizing bi logical sex or trying to

reduce the number of thought crimes

recorded by the police um what matters

less than the letter of the law it turns

out is who is applying the law and so

we'll be going through some new examples

today just to show you how much the

state hates you that's basically our job

over here at l.com the other job we have

is producing amazing things like

Islander magazine if you read the first

issue well done you're a man of culture

I see if you missed out on that we have

now issue two that our Intrepid editor

Rory has been working on diligently

sweating away doing all the art getting

all the he has been sweating he stinks

yeah he honks he reeks that mullet is

just dripping anyway um we have essays

we have more essays this time around we

have essays from K we have essays from

RoR nationalists and Nea Pini we also

have new writers like Dave green and

Stephan mullu so if you are curious

about what they've written for this

apocalypse Edition you can go and pick

it up for $14.99 same price as last time

but Mor of money and because we listen

to your feedback this time we are

printing in batches rather than

pre-ordering so it should mean that as

soon as you order links are down in the

description you should get it within 2

to 3 weeks so long as whatever country

you live in doesn't try and stop you

from getting the gloriousness of

Islander at the border we also have lots

of new merch um this is back there and I

pressed the wrong button didn't I there

it is uh the new merch which is all of

these wonderful design t-shirts they're

also limited edition so as soon as

Islander 2 goes out of print in how many

weeks is that do we know

okay four or five weeks so in in about a

month or so uh this is no longer going

to be available so quickly Rush down to

the shop by the way I wasn't listening

to the voices in my head it was my

producer I'm sane I promise anyway let's

quickly move on first example of this uh

some bloke sent Jess Phillips a death

threat I think this is a good example to

contrast the two tiers of Justice in the

UK so we're glad that this man Nabil

Arif I'm sure she'll say he's just a man

a man of nondescript identity from no

particular location whatsoever

moving swiftly on and we're glad Nabil

Arif has been jailed he's only been

sentenced 12 weeks he sent Phillips some

abusive messages beginning from the

Israel Gaza war in October 2023 in one

message he told Jess Phillips hell is

real and you will burn and in the last

email he said that he will burn her till

her skin is no more I mean that's

disgusting it's a death threat he should

get far longer than that I think we we

all agree the prown crown prosecution

service said he was sentenced to only 12

weeks after a call

after a tri at the same court on the

29th of July um and he was made the

subject of restraining order so he

shouldn't ever contact Phillips again

curiously though and I want to note this

at the bottom of this article they

include some details about the Israel

Hamas War they say 1,200 people were

killed in hamas's October the 7th

assault close to 41,000 people were

killed according to the health run

Ministry in the Hamas run territory so

so Guardian just dropped that in at the

end of the article there almost as like

an excuse for why he was making those

claims to contextualize it so see how

this is treated both by the crown

prosecution service and the labor

friendly press because the guardian

basically hting well she was kind of

asking for it yeah quite because

contrast this with the Guardians

reporting on this woman this is Julie

Sweeney for those who don't remember of

church Lon chesher she pled guilty at

Chester Crown Court to sending a

communication to convey a threat of

death or serious harm um she was jailed

for about 2 years and she said something

that is far less a direct threat still

very inadvisable don't do it it's silly

but far less a direct threat than what

the prior gentleman decided to say so

she was part of a Facebook community

group with 5,100 members responding to a

photograph that showed a number of white

and Asian people involved in cleaning up

after Southport she posted it's

absolutely ridiculous don't protect the

mosques and she said this not me blow

the mosque up with the adults in it

again that's a bit extreme stupid

disavow was she with the iment imminent

ability of doing that no was the other

fow more likely to be able to do that to

Jess Phillips certainly we know this

because in Jess Philip's own

constituency there were masked Muslims

that were armed attacking pubs and

publicans uh occupying a roundabout

threatening people in cars which Jess

Phillips herself tried to obv escape for

by the way and so the the sentencing

judge Steven Everett jailed her for 15

months so bit over a year and a half no

sorry just under a year and a half

telling her you should have been looking

at the news and media with horror like

every right-minded person instead you

chose to take part in stirring up hatred

you had a big audience you threatened a

mosque it was a truly terrible threat so

it's not enough to tell this woman that

what she posted was um incitement of

violence he had to give her a little

moral uh beating as well tell her that

here's how you're supposed to think I

know that this will be reported in the

newspapers so I'm going to signal to

everybody reading how they should feel

about things well he says here so-called

keyboard Warriors have to learn to take

responsibility for their language

particularly in the context of the

disorder that was going on around the

country remember that phrase the context

of what's going on broadly more

politically influences the justice

system that is the point they're making

there well and it's also important to

remember that when judge makes state

judges make statements like this they're

not making them for the person that

they're sentencing they're making them

for the newspapers to report on so

everybody can read what you're supposed

to do and to set precedent in law for

future cases that's important thing also

important to note for the guardian

notice something missing at the bottom

of this

article ah it's context about the

Southport Massacre that would have

otherwise explained why Sweeney was so

angry unlike the prior article that ends

with details about Gaza um from the

Hamas run health agency as well very

reputable that tries to contextualize

why AR sent Jess Phillips reprehensible

death threat so again two-tier reporting

to tier justice system so speaking of

the right to protest um policy exchange

have a report out on the pro Palestine

protest you can go and download the

publication in your own time give it a

read if you have the time to read 150

page report I wanted to pull out some

findings from this because we can see

here that the attempt to ameliorate the

justice system and the police and the

criminal prosecution service by

principles and legislation and a mandate

to duly impartially carry out the law is

just going to end up giving them over

more powers to prosecute people like us

so it's not encouraging so there's some

things in here and it says first of all

it goes into the costs associated with

importing this kind of ethn religious

tension that we saw on the pro Palestine

protest the Met police state the costs

of policing the Palestine protest in

London between October 2023 and June

2024 were 42.9 million with

517993 police officer shifts from

offices usually based outside the

Metropolitan Police area uh the 6,339

police officers had rest days canceled

between October and April 20124 all of

which were to be repaid in due course

bear in mind as we've covered repeatedly

on this podcast the the exact kind of

population to go on these Pro Palestine

protests are not net tax contributors so

they are frustrating our Capital City

every weekend of Wednesday more of a

drain exactly so these people are

costing us money anyway and then they're

costing us extra money to agitate for a

foreign war on behalf of prescribed

terror group bear in mind this happened

in the aftermath of October the 7th not

in the aftermath of Israel's response to

the October the 7th so it was a

celebration of what Hamas has done not a

complaint about how Israel responded the

same population as well um same host

paying for it don't want to visit their

own Capital City during these protests

as a Londoner I can agree polling was

conducted by policy exchange and it

showed members of the public choosing

not to engage in a wide range of

activities because of these protests

they didn't they dropped their plans to

travel with small children 71% travel

with an elderly or Mobility impaired

friend or relative 69% visit a tourist

attraction 62% go shopping 58% and eat a

specific restaurant 58% so more costs

economic but also cultural spiritual if

the host population are being

demoralized and chased out of their own

capital city oh yeah I can speak from my

own personal experience I've not been to

London in at the very least over a year

and I have no intention to go back if I

can avoid it why would I go there it

feels like navigating the rubble of the

Tower of Babel at this point it's really

unpleasant it's smelly it's busy it's

expensive I want to get out as quickly

as possible the main headline that came

out of this report that everyone was

reporting on they did an interview with

assistant commissioner to the

Metropolitan Police Matt twist and he

said the following when we look back at

the policing of protest over the last 8

months we know we didn't get everything

right particularly in the early stages

of October we've developed our tactics

since then becoming faster and more

decisive on an occasion we did not move

quickly to make arrests for example the

man chanting for Jihad which was a

decision made following fast time advice

from lawyers and the CPS so guidance

provided by the 700 strong Muslim

activist Network in the home office and

pro-immigration lawyers which usually

have an ethnic and religious bias are

advising the Met not to crack down on

people chanting for inad and Jihad I

wonder why he said we are now much more

focused on identifying reasonable

grounds for arrest acting where needed

and then investigating so in these

circumstances it's very likely arrest

would be made more quickly now oh it's

very likely arrest would be made more

quickly now in the aftermath of another

set of protests which were the

indigenous population protesting and so

now you're going to get much harder on

it isn't that fascinating I I I wonder

if anyone from the post Southport

protest one of Mr Robinson's rallies not

you other one would have chanted from

the channel to the Irish sea Britain

will be free they'd be locked up in

handcuffs but not the other way around

got it also an important detail uh that

they find here so in order to Stage a

protest in Britain you have to give the

authorities six days warning if you want

to do a large scale March the Palestine

solidarity campaign contacted the

Metropolitan Police to inform them of

their intention to conduct their first

mass Palestine protest 10 hours after

the terrorist attack on October

7th right so not protesting the gross

injustices by the Israeli regime just

open ethn religious solidarity and

celebrating murders why were any of

these

allowed letter of the law could have

stopped that any time but it doesn't

that's most important so the recommended

response was that the government should

legislate to establish a protest

commission for

London protest commission for London

involving independent Commission

independent as we always know there is

no such thing there's no such thing as a

neutral process it's always political

appointed by the Home Secretary

following consultation with the mayor of

London independent appointed by the

labor Home Secretary and the labor mayor

of London both of whom endorsed and

oversaw the protests great suggestion

the government should amend section 11

of the public order act 1986 to increase

the notification period for all protest

marches to 28 days but they'll just step

over that or they they want to they'll

let the ones they like go ahead and

they'll ban the ones they don't like

which they do anyway the government

should legislate to require the police

forces must take action to prevent the

interference by protesters with the

operation of those installations of

facilities classified as key National

infrastructure and expand the definition

of NA national infrastructure under the

public order act 2023 to include

Parliament government departments and

the

courts

so they're anticipating some sort of

physical attack on government

parliaments and the courts cuz the only

thing I can think of in recent memory

was the protest outside the ceasefire

debate where they projected from The

River To The Sea on Big Ben but they

knew where the projector was Martin

dobly pointed out the Met police just

shrug their shoulders and didn't arrest

anyone didn't even turn it off so again

choices were made here they could have

done it at any time they also should

make it unlawful for individuals at

protest to wear face coverings so a

couple of years after mandating them

they're now going to make them illegal

again I would feel I don't like face

coverings but I would feel comfortable

with people wearing face coverings if

they weren't a demographic more likely

to commit violence against me for

ideological or impulse control reasons

um Sadi KH also apparently conduct an

equality impact of the protests on

businesses tourism and threats to women

the disabled and the elderly which I'm

sure he'll do completely impartially

just as he did with ules the

commissioner of the Met police must take

all possible steps to ensure all those

that are suspected of committing

criminal offenses at protests are

arrested at the time of the offense so

the police should do their jobs that's

an actual recommendation in the policy

report in modern Britain but as well we

saw with the Southport riots and

protests that went on that the

Metropolitan Police will just Hoover up

anybody if they feel like it depending

on the cause of the protest in the first

place yes but if it inflames Community

tensions at Notting Hill Carnival the

Palestine riots they'll let people go

and sort of lazily try and track them

down comfortably from their desk with a

cup of tea and a packet of biscuits

afterwards and maybe they might perform

some arrests and even then they'll say

oh a small minority will ruining it for

the rest of us how could they there's

also this reminder right provided in the

executive

summary Central to these events is the

claim of a right to protest despite

there being no such explicit and

unfettered right within the ECR or the

Human Rights Act 1998 instead of a right

to protest the following articles are um

allowing people to protest article 11

right to freedom of peaceful assembly

and Association and article 10 the right

to freedom of expression both rights are

explicitly qualified by restri itions as

prescribed by law and unnecessary in a

Democratic Society among other things in

the interest of national security or

public safety for the for the prevention

of disorder and crime protection of

health and morals protection of the

rights of others etc etc so all of these

are nebulous definitions and they just

allow the state to pretend that they're

ratifying and making impartial decisions

on human rights and instead punish their

political enemies and favor their

political friends and the perfect

example of this is the recommendation in

here that the crown prosecution service

must amend its legal guidance on

offenses during protests demonstrations

or campaigns to reduce the likelihood of

suspects not being prosecuted for public

interest reasons that's literally what

the judge said in Sweeney's case that

we're going to teach you keyboard

Warriors a lesson none of that was said

about Arif even though we had the

Palestine marches and we had those armed

Muslims in Jess Phillips's own

constituency there wasn't a need to talk

about Democratic principles or a

chilling effect there just give him few

weeks few months in prison and and keep

them shut up about it again this is what

I found I remembered this you tweet this

out a while ago this is your law Harry's

Law in effect you tweeted out no matter

its intended foreign Target

anti-terrorist technology and

intelligence departments will be

inevitably used to spy on and imprison

white European populations this is

exactly that well if the purpose of a

system is what it does then the purpose

of the UK government is to punish the

British people quite yes perfect example

of this is the equality act um the

equality act that people keep saying we

need to appeal to to get gender critical

wins for example example uh this chap Mr

S Thomas bear in mind um he does use

social media like a boomer in here so I

I I will point that out he went to anlo

employment tribunal about the NHS

claiming that he as a contractor had

been discriminated against for his

English nationalist views so the point

of the equality Act is it's meant

to protect certain characteristics as in

the government's favored ones and

certain beliefs from discrimination in

employment so for example example um

it's intersectionality codified in law

you can obviously actively positively

discriminate against white straight

Christian men but you can't discriminate

against black women for example the

recent win that we supposedly got was

the Maya for stat case where gender

critical AKA believing in biological sex

beliefs are now protected characteristic

under the equality act but it just shows

that even if you try and appeal to the

equality act to get wins they will just

selectively apply it if and where

because this this chap um the judge

ruled said by by the end of the hearing

employment judge Hyde considered the

third question from the list of issues

was more properly posed

as if uh were his anti-islamic views

worthy of respect in Democratic Society

incompatible with human dignity and did

they conflict with the fundamental

rights of others such that they would

prevent the claimant's belief in English

nationalism from being a protected

characteristic AKA did they offend

Muslims therefore can we fire him from

his job and they say to the claimant and

that he identifies his views to the

claimant English nationalism is the

nationalism that ass asserts the English

are a nation and promotes bless you

thank you the cultural Unity of English

people the claimants focuses on national

identity which does not depend on

Ancestry or race rather than comment

descent or race so he's very Boomer

Civic

nationalism England is a set of values

ideals and even that is too far gone for

the equality act so he's not even

arguing for protection on the basis of

ethnicity or racial identity he's

arguing for the protection on the basis

of values and even then they're making

the discrimination against which values

are preferred by the state versus which

values are prescribed by the state

they're saying sorry mate Britain is gay

race communism values exactly so the

decision was this judge hyid observed in

cross-examination before the Leeds

employment tribunal the claimant has

said that Islam in its current form

should be banned from England unless it

were anglicized and toned down to fit

within Society in England so even then

he's being quite generous employment

judge Hyde commented at the hearing

before her the claimant did not dispute

these comments were consistent with his

English nationalism the claimant alleged

his assignment within the NHS trust had

been terminated because of his belief in

English nationalism he claimed this was

belief discriminatory contrary to the

equality act 2010 at a hearing the

employment tribunal heard held the

claimant's belief was not protected by

the equality act the claimant appealed

this decision the appeal is dismissed

the claimants views are of an English

nationalism which believes there is no

place in British Society for Muslims or

Islam itself among the claimants views

are that the Muslims should be forcibly

deported from the United Kingdom these

views are not capable of protection

under the European convention on human

rights as they would offend article 17

which provides that nothing in this

convention may be interpreted as

implying for any state group or person

to Enga to or to any right to engage in

any activity or perform any act aimed at

the destruction of any rights and

freedoms set forth herein at the

limitation to a greater extent that's

provided in the convention the claim is

not prevent not prevented from holding

his views but he is outside of the right

to complain that he has been

discriminated against in relation to

those beliefs in the circumstances

covered by the eqa it's obvious that

he's been discriminated against on the

grounds of belief because this is

happening in the judgment and so what

the equality act exists to do is

designate certain beliefs and certain

characteristics above certain others and

afford them certain legal protections

over the indigenous host population and

I don't necessarily want to use the

equality act for any of this I would

rather the entire thing with scrapped

but the point matters that who applies

the law matters less than the consistent

letter of the law and here's a great

example um melb and some labor

politician for for Birmingham erdington

paulet Hamilton MP are trying to bring

forth an amendment to protect afro hair

under the equality

act no if it was up to me no I mean

again we'd scrap the whole thing if it

was up to me but this is frivolous yeah

well you're in a joke of a country so

actually um our favorite independent

journalist Cony drer has given us a

vision of the future uh you're under

arrest for describing a mixed race

woman's hair as frizzy without an afro

hair Ally license which is a serious

crime it's all in here mate you're going

away for a long time makes me sick there

are people like you walk in the streets

well not for much

longer you think I'm joking I mean this

is I've seen him post a few of these

with this particular gentleman this

particular officer holding up a variety

of books the um second treaties on

government second sex is one of them uh

the The Second Sex um Vindication of the

rights of women it's all in here mate

it's all in here this is why we're doing

this set text by the College of policing

now look I'll wrap this up because um

you think I'm joking I wish I wish want

a joke of a country because this

actually could be possible because IET

Cooper is bringing back non-crime hate

incidents and we say than bringing back

because for of the show Harry Miller in

2021 took the College of policing to

court and it was ruled that the way they

were recording these non-crime hate

incidents was unlawful they were giving

you a black mark on your DBS check not

informing you of who had made the claim

what evidence the claim was and if you

had a claim against you and so you could

be turned down for jobs without ever

knowing why and because there's no

evidentiary standard the people that

were making the claim were treated

automatically as the victims and you as

perpetrators even though they're not

crimes he had found that between 2014

when these were adopted as a result of

the mcferson report and 2020 over

120,000 of these been recorded we now

estimate 250,000 of these have been

recorded and despite sella braveman in

2023 putting in the police crime

sentencing and courts Bill new

legislation and guidance being given to

the College of policing to stop

recording these for frivolous reasons

they went up last

year the law does not matter 30 of the

43 police forces in England and Wales

increased the number of non-crime hate

incidents they recorded So I just want

to reiterate for everyone and you can

find out more about these stats in a

recent episode of my show that I did

there I broke it down for an hour and a

half it's very laborious but hopefully a

useful resource the point of this

segment is to reiterate as Thomas Hobbs

once said autoritas non Veritas faket Le

Authority not truth makes law and the

people applying the law are the

authority that matters more than its

letter it's not on our side I hope you

appreciated that segment from the

podcast to the Lotus Eaters and if you

want to see what else we're putting out

you can see this speech from Carl and if

you want to see all the other work that

we're putting out you can follow us on

Twitter where we post links to

everything thank you very much for

watching and goodbye

[Music]