Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Philip Davies and the Temple of Feminist Zealots

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 4, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

35:21

Philip Davies and the Temple of Feminist Zealots

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to 2017 folks.
	I tell you what, this year is going to be a very interesting year.
	Now, Philip Davis, the Conservative MP and well-known campaigner for men's rights, is set to join the Women and Equalities Committee in Parliament.
	I've made videos on Philip Davies before because the man is clearly a legend.
	An MRA getting himself elected to the Feminist Women Inequalities Commission.
	How is that not going to be like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?
	Honestly, 2017 is already amazing.
	Now that's raised a few eyebrows.
	That seems to be understating the case somewhat, doesn't it?
	I'm sure there are more than a few gender bigots in Parliament who are absolutely furious.
	Not because Philip Davis is a man.
	There are already two of them on the committee.
	But because Mr. Davis has previously derided what he calls militant feminists.
	And he even described the creation of the Women and Equalities Committee as depressing.
	That's a lot more generous than I would have done.
	I would have described it as communist.
	What kind of liberal society has ministries and committees and whatnot to enforce equality?
	What a bizarre notion.
	I mean, it's like the diversity boards at practically every corporation you can think of these days to mandate forced diversity.
	That is not what I want out of a liberal society.
	So depressing.
	I think Mr. Davies is understating the case somewhat.
	I think it's distinctly anti-liberal and they should all be scrapped.
	Well, Philip Davis joins me now from Central Lobby, as does the co-leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.
	Welcome to both of you.
	Philip Davis, if you think the committee's depressing, why are you joining it?
	Well, the committee's there whether I like it or not.
	So if I can bring some common sense to the committee, that's surely a good thing, just in the same way that you keep used to take their seats in the EU Parliament, not because they were fans of the EU Parliament or everything that it represented, but because they hope to hold it to account.
	Well, they didn't just want to hold it to account, they wanted to actually end our involvement in the Parliament.
	Is that what you're going to do with this committee?
	Try and bring it down, break it up?
	Well, that's exactly what I want, because it's quite obvious that these kinds of committees are acting like ideological think tanks for feminism and giving them, giving these ideas, undue influence over the government.
	But of course, it's probably very impolitic to say that.
	Well, I'd prefer it if it was just called the Equalities Committee.
	I don't see why it needs to be called the Women and Equalities Committee.
	So I'm just going to do an Anna Kasparian and keep it 100 right now.
	It's because they're supremacists.
	It's because they think women deserve special treatment and special rights over non-women.
	No, that's not just men.
	That's any gender.
	There are hundreds of genders now, but women deserve the special treatment.
	That's why, and Caroline Lucas knows it.
	Philip knows it.
	And nobody wants to say it.
	You can still look at women's issues on a committee that's just called equalities, but it seems to indicate that there are no issues for men.
	And clearly there are issues where men suffer.
	So I don't really see why it can't just be called the Equalities Committee.
	Right.
	Well, what do you think about that, Caroline?
	Well, I think that I hope that the time that he spends on the committee will be an opportunity for him to understand a bit more about entrenched sexism in our society.
	Amazing.
	Instead of even attempting to address his point, she just spews feminist dogma at people.
	Well, did you know there was entrenched sexism?
	Well, yeah, but it seems to be against men, which is why you have a special Women's and Equalities Committee.
	I mean, it would make more sense to call it the Women's and Men's Committee if you wanted to be equal.
	But no, no, no.
	You want women to be separate and first, and then the equalities, which would surely involve both men and women.
	It's obviously an attempt to get special treatment.
	And instead of even vaguely acknowledging this, she just tries to justify it by saying, well, we live in a patriarchy.
	Women are terribly oppressed.
	Isn't this justified?
	So this is an MP who has been saying, as you said, that this committee shouldn't even exist.
	It shouldn't.
	It's clearly an attempt to get special privileges for women by women who can be adequately described as feminist zealots.
	That it was disappointing that it was going ahead, and yet he's now hoping to take his position on it.
	And you're really not very happy about that, are you, Caroline?
	I mean, it's not very fun to have a dissenting voice enter the echo chamber and throw a spanner in the works with a bunch of statistics that you can't simply ignore because they're going to make an issue out of it.
	And I just think that we need MPs on that committee who recognise, for example, the level of the gender pay gap, who recognise the disproportionate violence against women, who recognise that there's still a very long way to go in business, in politics, in just about every sphere of life where women are discriminated against and where we need to have concerted effort to support women.
	Yes, we can all see that this is a feminist ideological think tank and you're pissed off that an MRA has managed to infiltrate his way onto it.
	How very dare he not agree with your nonsense about feminism.
	The dogma, I'm not even going to refute any of your points.
	People hearing it are just going to be like, yeah, okay, feminists in our job.
	Totally out of touch with reality.
	Pushing an agenda that benefits them because, let's be honest, you're a woman and you directly benefit from all this.
	Women need special treatment because that's a quality in the feminist mind.
	Fuck off.
	Right.
	Certainly not against having actions to support men and Philip does a good job doing that.
	But let him do that in his work there and let the Women's Inequalities Party carry on.
	Where the hell else would he go to do this other than the Women and Equalities Party as you described it?
	Whereas in fact it's the Women Inequalities Committee.
	This is the control feminists have had over this system so far.
	And this is what they're furious about.
	Well yeah we can't deny that men are people too and deserve their own fucking identity representation if we're going to make identity representation a thing.
	But we don't want them encroaching on our little turf.
	We don't want them encroaching on the Equalities Committee.
	The Equalities Committee is for women and only women and he should go somewhere else to deal with the issues that he's raising that I am even I'm not even going to try and refute because I know that there is concrete evidence to suggest that Philip Davies is right and I am full of shit.
	Rather than having him, a person who says that he's taking his lead from UKIP in the European Parliament, as we know they're trying to bring down the presence of the European Parliament, that's not a very good precedent for the Women Inequalities Party.
	Fuck the Women Inequalities Party.
	It's the Women Inequalities Committee.
	You can't even distinguish the two because you've had hegemonic control over this from the fucking start.
	Yes, he's coming to ruin your fun.
	He's coming to wreck your fucking supremacist movement.
	And he should.
	You don't serve everyone.
	You only serve yourselves.
	That is unacceptable in an egalitarian liberal democracy.
	You don't get to just serve yourselves, which is how Philip Davies got on that bloody committee in the first place.
	Yes, the entire committee should be scrapped.
	The women's section is full of nonsense.
	The men's section is going completely underrepresented.
	And as soon as a representative comes along, you freak the fuck out.
	It's obvious that you are not interested in fairness or equality.
	You're interested in yourselves.
	And how much of taxpayer money is going into this committee?
	I want to know.
	Do you understand the issues of entrenched sexism, Philip Davis, as Caroline Lucas has just outlined, the gender pay gap violence against women?
	Do you understand those issues?
	I love the way she frames this question.
	No, let's not.
	We're not just going to take her assertions at face value, especially when we can look at any one of the assertions and find that she is misrepresenting it to the point where it's total nonsense.
	Britain is not a society with entrenched sexism, and the disparity in numbers between men and women at the highest levels of government and business and whatnot is the consequence of women's life choices.
	The gender pay gap is a misnomer.
	It is the gender earnings gap.
	Women get what they earn and they choose to earn less.
	Yes, absolutely.
	There are massive issues that affect women.
	There is a gender pay gap.
	There's also a part-time gender pay gap where women are paid more than men.
	Yes, many women, two-thirds of victims of domestic violence are women, but one-third of victims are men.
	So what I'm saying is, of course, there are issues that affect women and they should be tackled on the committee.
	But equally, there are issues that affect men, and I don't see why they should be excluded from having their views on what is supposed to be an equalities committee.
	I believe in equality where gender should be irrelevant, and that's what I want to try and bring to the committee.
	Did you see Caroline's reaction there?
	She couldn't believe he was about to say that just because some of the victims are men, something needs to be done.
	Should be irrelevant, and that's what I want to try and bring to the committee.
	Yes, imagine making gender an irrelevancy when the government or businesses or whoever is dealing with their employees.
	Imagine if that was simply not a factor that was brought into consideration.
	What would feminists do?
	What would they have to argue against?
	What possible cause would they have?
	And ironically, this is why women are doing as well as women are doing and not as well as feminists would like them to do.
	Women get to make their own choices and they do.
	The ones who want to go into government, the ones who want to go into business, they do and their gender doesn't hold them back.
	And I just want to point out that Philip Davies is a conservative and the Conservatives are currently on their second female prime minister.
	The only female prime ministers we've had have been conservatives and they are against, in general, this kind of equalities Marxist crap.
	This is the best way to get women to where you want them to go because the women who want to get there will prove themselves and as the Conservatives have demonstrated, they do not have an institutional bias against women.
	Right, and what's wrong with that, Caroline?
	Well, when we have a society where women and men are equally represented in the different spheres of power in this country, then I think that's the time for the debate that Philip wants to have.
	I think this is the most pernicious thing I've ever heard.
	When we have total control of the system and we can make it so from the top down, women are 50%, men are 50%, black people, non-white people are 13%, white people 87%.
	When we have such overwhelming control of the system that we can arrange it exactly as we want, then we can talk about abolishing us, the people controlling the system.
	That's never going to fucking happen and you know it, Caroline.
	So fuck your desire to never have this conversation until a wildly unrealistic goal has been attained.
	Because that's simply not how we run this country, Caroline.
	We don't have this kind of overwhelming control over our institutions.
	That's the point of being a liberal society.
	We let the people do it themselves and then they follow their own life paths as they choose.
	We don't have overbearing moral busybodies setting the fucking rules all the way down.
	You don't have any kind of mandate to do this.
	This is completely illegitimate and I will reject it at every turn and you will never be able to defend it, which is why you won't come near someone like me.
	You know, in your heart of hearts, if we would sit down and have a conversation about this, you'll look like a fucking fool.
	If he wants to go ahead, as he does, and organise to raise issues around men's equality and issues around very serious issues about suicide rates for men and so forth, then by all means, please go and do that.
	We support that.
	Just not in our feminist safe space that we've marked out as purely a feminist organisation, our little committee that I will use the word party interchangeably with because I consider it to be mine exclusively.
	No, Caroline, that's not how it works.
	The women's bit should be dropped from the Equalities Committee if we can't just scrap the entire damn committee.
	And you will be dealing with men's issues in it.
	And you will because Philip has been elected to it.
	He's going to make it happen.
	It's going to suck for you.
	Get used to the new reality.
	But to have a presence on the committee who doesn't even believe the committee should exist, to have a presence who thinks that this is about feminist zealots, as he's put it, that to me doesn't suggest that this is going to be a very constructive contribution to the work of the committee.
	Oh, let's have a talk about that then, shall we, Caroline?
	Let's have a talk about feminist zealots, whom you appear to be doing a fine job representing.
	Here's a clip from the conference that Philip Davies spoke at that they are talking about.
	This is what he said.
	I want to be very clear that I don't believe that there is actually an issue between men and women.
	I think the problem is being stirred up by those who could be described as militant feminists and the politically correct males who pander to this nonsense.
	It seems to me that this has led to a equality but only when it suits agenda that applies to women.
	The drive for women to have so-called equality on all the things that suit the politically correct agenda, but not on the things that don't, is of increasing concern to me.
	For example, we hear plenty about increasing the numbers of women on company boards and female representation in parliament.
	However, there's a deafening silence when it comes to increasing the number of men who have custody of their children or who have careers as midwives.
	In fact, generally, there seems to be a deafening silence on all the benefits women have compared to men.
	In this day and age, the feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it.
	They fight for their version of equality on all the things that suit women, but are very quick to point out that women need special protections and treatment on other things.
	Philip Davies is 100% correct there.
	And that got him in a lot of trouble.
	After speaking the truth, feminists in our parliament decided to put pressure on him to try and have him suspended from the Conservative Party for speaking the truth.
	The comments disclosed by The Guardian provoked outrage across the political spectrum, including calls from the Labour leader that Davies should have his membership of the Conservative Party suspended by the Prime Minister.
	Jeremy Corbyn said the deeply sexist comments, unbelievable, Corbyn.
	You're a fucking moron.
	There is nothing sexist about calling feminist zealots zealots.
	But apparently they revealed Davies had an utter contempt for women before calling on Theresa May to withdraw the Conservative whip.
	Why the fuck would you say that, Jeremy?
	Unless you are a total ideologue yourself.
	Oh wait, that's the reason, isn't it?
	The shadow secretary for women inequalities, Angela Rayner, also called for Davies' suspension.
	She said Theresa May should withdraw the Tory whip from Mr. Davies while an investigation is carried out.
	investigation into what?
	His opinion on feminism?
	He has open contempt for women.
	No, he doesn't.
	No, he doesn't.
	He's just said there is no issue between men and women.
	The issue is between ideologically driven zealots.
	That's the issue and you're one of them, Angela.
	His open contempt for women, his views are so out of date, they're prehistoric.
	Yes, they are classically liberal views.
	Jenny Earle, director for Prison Reform Trust's programme for reducing women's imprisonment, which we'll get to in a bit in fact, said the evidence is not that women are treated more leniently.
	In fact, they are twice as likely as men to receive a custodial sentence for a first offence, and a main offence for which women are imprisoned is theft and shoplifting.
	Oh my god, we're going to go into this in a bit.
	I'm not even going to address this yet.
	I just want to show that, look, there is literally a program for reducing women's imprisonment, despite the fact that women are 5% of the prisoners in Britain.
	Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said, Philip Davies is a man with form on these issues.
	Tragically, in 2016, he sounds increasingly anachronistic and at odds with many in his own party, including the Prime Minister herself.
	Yes, because they are all brow-beaten into compliance by an ideology they don't understand.
	Philip Davies has much better understanding of feminism than anyone else in his party, evidently.
	But it's to their credit that they're supporting his bid to get on the Women and Equalities Committee.
	Good for them, good for him, and holy shit.
	I'm so glad to see this happen.
	But seriously, when I say that this is like Indiana Jones walking into the Temple of Doom, I'm not joking.
	All of the forces arrayed in this situation are arrayed against Philip Davies.
	He is actually being incredibly brave by stepping up and challenging them.
	And the first thing they do is go after his job.
	We want him suspended.
	We want him suspended.
	Here's a chorus of arseholes trying to get the man suspended from his job for challenging the ideological orthodoxy.
	How dare he even bring up the subject?
	This was all agreed, even though the facts don't bear it out.
	And the thing I find most amusing about all of this is that the feminist zealots themselves cannot help but undermine the feminist cause when they're trying to say, well, no, he's saying feminist zealots, that's crazy.
	No one's a feminist zealot except the feminist zealots who come out and write articles in the Guardian saying, I'm proud to be a feminist zealot.
	Fuck that MRA.
	I'm a fucking feminist.
	I am a female supremacist.
	Why?
	Because I'm a fucking woman and I hate men.
	The Conservative MP Philip Davies has accused me of wanting to have my own cake and eat it.
	I say he accused me, but the specific accusation must do feminist zealots.
	But I'm holding up my hand.
	I am a zealot when it comes to feminism and a militant too.
	Well, there we go.
	Sophie Walker is exactly the kind of person that Philip Davies is complaining about.
	He's saying these people are the problem and they're holding up their fucking hands to say yes, we are the problem that he's talking about.
	So don't act like there aren't feminist zealots in British society and involved in politics who are doing nothing but.
	Jess Phillips is a prime example if you need another one who's also on this committee.
	So my god, I can only imagine the fire she must be spitting when they have their meetings, the dirty looks.
	Because remember, Jess Phillips and Philip Davies have a history.
	I mean you haven't started off well, one might say, in the terms of the language that you've used.
	Feminist zealots being just one of the terms that you've used to describe people like Caroline Lucas on the committee.
	But also, you made a comment at an event organized by a group called Justice for Men and Boys.
	They run a Lying Feminist of the Month award.
	According to their website, the awards highlight the fact that feminists are whiny, gormless, toxic liars.
	Whiny, gormless, toxic liars.
	That's how people perceive the feminist movement.
	They have a whiny or lying feminist of the month because there are so many whiny, lying feminists who are toxic and whatnot.
	It's just you're not doing yourself any favours when you allow them to make that case.
	Were you right to give a speech at their conference?
	Well, look, I appear on the BBC, but I'm hardly the greatest fan of the BBC.
	And so just because you appear on a platform somewhere doesn't mean to say that that therefore necessarily means you endorse everything about that organisation.
	I totally agree, but look at her smug face.
	What's this?
	See, but I'm hardly the greatest fan of the BBC.
	Look at that.
	And so just because you appear on a platform somewhere doesn't mean to say that that therefore necessarily means you endorse everything about that organisation.
	So if that was the case, I would never appear on the BBC if you were setting that particular barrier.
	People should listen to what I actually said rather, play the ball rather than the man.
	And what the point I made at that speech was that men and women are treated completely differently in the criminal justice system.
	And I don't think that should be the case.
	It should be the case that men and women are treated equally when they go before the court.
	I can't imagine why Caroline is shaking her head then because her entire stance is based on the idea that men and women are treated differently by the criminal justice system.
	That's her contention.
	But Philip's difference is that he thinks that women have it better and he has the statistics to prove it.
	In fact, we'll go through the statistics now.
	We'll let him...
	This can be a fairly long clip, but it's because there is so much proof of what he is saying that this goes on for such a long time.
	The first myth is that I keep hearing and still do that women are very likely to be sent to prison and more likely than men to be given a custodial sentence.
	This is quite simply untrue.
	Everyone I've spoken to who is involved with the criminal justice system confirms anecdotally that this is not the case.
	But let's not take their word for it.
	Let's just look at the facts.
	I asked the House of Commons Library to provide the evidence that more women were being sent to prison than men.
	Not only did they not provide this information, they confirmed that the opposite is in fact true.
	And the library said, and I quote, the published statistics show that a higher proportion of men are given a sentence of immediate custody than women, irrespective of age of offender, juveniles, young adults or adult, and the type of court.
	For each offence group, a higher proportion of males are sentenced to custody than females.
	And I have the figures for West Yorkshire too, just to prove that this is happening everywhere.
	For example, robberies, which you could be forgiven for thinking are surely the same whether committed by a man or a woman.
	The imprisonment rate in West Yorkshire is 70% for men, but just 50% for women.
	Then, of course, those actually sent to prison, the average sentence for men was 39.2 months, and yet just 28.43 months for women.
	The Home Office also undertook statistical research some years ago to try to ascertain the best comparison for similar sentencing situations.
	The research looked at 13,000 cases and concluded that women shoplifters were less likely than comparable males to receive a prison sentence.
	Women first offenders were significantly less likely than equivalent men to receive a prison sentence for a drug offence.
	The Ministry of Justice confirmed that probation staff were more than twice as likely to recommend custody for male offenders due to be sentenced in Crown Courts than for female offenders.
	24% of males and just 11% of females.
	And even repeat offenders are more likely to fare better if they're women.
	39% of men compared to 29% of women are sent to prison for committing more than 15 offences.
	All this shows that it's wrong to say that women are more likely to be sent to prison than men.
	The reality is the exact opposite.
	In addition to the undeniable evidence that women are less likely to be sent to prison than men is the fact that, as I've mentioned in relation to West Yorkshire, their average sentence length is less than those given to men too across the board.
	Again, the Ministry of Justice said, going back to 2011, women given an immediate custodial sentence for indictable offences receive shorter average sentence lengths than men, 11.6 months compared to 17.7 months for males.
	This is not a minor difference.
	This figure shows that the average male prison sentence is over 50% more than the average female prison sentence for committing the same crimes.
	This is something that those who allege to be so keen on equality should certainly be thinking about.
	Yet not only are women less likely to be sent to prison and likely to be sentenced to a lesser term than their male counterparts, they're also likely to serve less of the sentence they are given.
	And again, the Ministry of Justice itself says in its offender statistics, those discharged from determinate sentences had served 53% of their sentence in custody.
	On average, males served a greater proportion of their sentence in custody, 53%, compared to 48% for females in the quarter ending December 2011.
	This gender difference is consistent over time and partly reflects the higher proportion of females who are released on home detention curfew, which I'll come on to in a second.
	In the last few years that the figures have been published, women have had 50% more chance than men to be released from prison on home detention curfew.
	Some of the prison stories from Vicky Price's book also throw up some interesting facts.
	She says many women with children were released on something called child care resettlement license, which I'd never heard of until I read Vicky Price's book, which allows them to go home and spend weekends with their children prior to their official release from prison.
	Given everything I've said about the likelihood or not of being sent to prison, then the length of sentence given, as well as the likelihood of early release, you might be forgiven for assuming that they would at least have the decency to serve what is left of their prison sentence in prison.
	But no.
	I can do no better than quote Vicki Price, who was herself shocked in her book, when she said, The result was that at times over the weekend, the prison was less than half full.
	In fact, what did amaze me was the sheer number of people who were away most of the time.
	Are there any questions from any feminists in the audience?
	Women do not receive harsher sentences in the prison system, and when you claim they do, that makes you some kind of science-denying flat earther.
	You are wrong, so categorically wrong, there is simply no evidence at all for what you're saying.
	So stop saying it.
	So the only difference here between me and Caroline, it seems, is that I want this committee to be called the Equalities Committee, and it seems that she just wants it to be called the Women's Committee.
	I actually believe in genuine equality between the genders, between races, between sexes.
	Wow, two of us can interrupt here, Caroline.
	I love the way that he is actually pointing out the truth of the matter, and you can't let that stand.
	You have to try and interrupt.
	Because if people hear him speaking the truth, they might not believe your lies.
	But go ahead, let's hear what you have to say.
	But this is really informative, really insightful, and really important.
	So important that you need to speak over him.
	Very funny way of showing it, Philip.
	And I think what he should be doing right now, December the 14th, is to give us all a Christmas present by saying this is all a bit of a joke and he's not going to be on that committee because everything he's just been saying does not convince me this is going to be a constructive presence on the committee.
	Oh no, it's not.
	For you, it's going to be really unconstructive.
	In fact, it's going to be completely deconstructing your ideological bullshit.
	Feminism has to die.
	You as a feminist are going to have to lose any privileges you gained on the back of being a feminist.
	And you know what?
	That fucking sucks for you.
	But for everyone else, the 93% of the country who are not feminists, that's a good thing.
	We get to stop these kind of gender Marxists from taking over and making rules and controlling everything when they have no legitimacy in controlling it.
	They've got this through nonsense, through lies, through deception, through playing on people's better natures.
	It's about time this is stopped and I can't wait to see how this goes in 2017 for you.
	There's serious work to be done.
	Work that's been doing around women and disabilities, for example, issues around the gender pay gap, which is still glaring when it comes to women, women and politics.
	These are issues that need concerted action now, and I'm not sure Philip's a man to help us.
	I don't know about the disability one, but the gender pay gap, all this other nonsense you come out with, that's not a real issue.
	That's you thinking you can get something by making a non-issue an issue.
	It's going to stop, Caroline.
	It's going to stop.
	We see you for what you are.
	Everyone can see what you're doing.
	It's going to come to an end.
	The gravy train is over.
	No longer will you be able to make your money by finding non-issues, building them up and bullshitting your way into Parliament, into a fucking special little committee where you get all this kind of power totally unjustifiably.
	And I'll be there every step of the way watching and laughing at your failures because you are a liar.
	You and your feminist zealot cronies are all toxic, gormless, whiny liars.
	Joke, your application, Philip.
	No, not at all.
	And it's very sad.
	I would have thought Caroline would be the one person who would actually want to protect people with minority opinions in Parliament.
	Do you think you're a minority, Philip?
	I'll come and think so.
	Honestly, you just can't stop yourselves, can you?
	Oh no, no, you're a white Anglo-Saxon man.
	You couldn't possibly be a minority, even though you're a conservative anti-feminist, going into a den of feminist ideologues.
	And you think that he's not going to be a minority.
	But no, no, no.
	You can't see further than race and gender because you're a fucking bigot.
	That's the problem we have with you, Caroline.
	That's the problem everyone fucking has with you and all feminists.
	You're a bunch of goddamn bigots.
	You just tried to delegitimize what he said based on his race and gender.
	Honestly, how you don't see it is beyond me.
	Seems to me that Caroline wants people on the committee only if they agree with her.
	Well, surely the whole point of a select committee is to have people on there with a range of opinions.
	Otherwise, what on earth is the point of an all-party select committee with people who can only get on there if they all agree with Caroline?
	It sounds like you are going to get on there because you're standing unopposed, but of course Parliament, any member of Parliament, Caroline Lucas, can block the appointment or election to this committee.
	Will you try and block it?
	I will talk to others and see what strategies they're pursuing.
	Of course you're going to try and block it.
	Of course you're going to.
	You've already gone after his fucking job for Christ's sake.
	Of course the feminist zealots are going to try and block an anti-feminist MRA from getting in their special little club.
	But it's not going to work, is it, Caroline?
	We need to have a proper hearing with Philip and really just check out that he doesn't think the people who are standing up for things like equal pay or standing up for women in the justice system are feminist zealots.
	You are a feminist zealot.
	There are plenty of feminist zealots holding up their fucking hands saying we are feminist zealots.
	The committee is full of feminist zealots.
	Don't sit there and pretend like it's wrong to call you what you are.
	You are a feminist zealot and you want to ideologically vet the people who get into your special little clubs.
	But that's not the power that you have.
	He can get on there and he has gotten on there and you look like you're about to fucking explode.
	These little smiles you're giving, you look fucking angry.
	You look really angry.
	As long as he can show us of that, maybe he should have a role and he could learn something by being on the committee.
	Could that be any more controlling?
	If you're prepared to bend the knee and accept our dogma, then maybe we will allow you on there, even though we've got no power to stop you going on there, and you don't have to accept anything that we say.
	It's just amazing to me that you speak with such arrogance.
	You think that you deserve to be in control of all this because you say the right things, even though what you're saying doesn't actually reflect reality.
	You're liars.
	You're conspiracy theorists.
	You're flat earthers.
	You're out of touch with real life.
	And you're doing it for your own self-interest.
	I can't believe you're tolerated in any way, shape, or form.
	To finish this video, we're just going to look at the way that Philip Davies is being treated in the House of Commons by his fellow MPs, presumably among them feminist zealots, who disagree with him even just going down this route.
	Mike, thank you.
	Thank you very much indeed for that kind introduction.
	It's nice to be speaking to an audience where I'm relatively popular.
	Certainly doesn't happen in the House of Commons very often.
	I used to hear it in the House of Commons all the time.
	I used to hear that women were treated very badly in the criminal justice system.
	And I actually wanted to find out the facts because I thought that that was an outrage too.
	That they shouldn't be treated worse in the criminal justice system.
	And I set it out to find the truth and getting the information from the House of Commons Library.
	I've now amassed so much evidence to show that it's men who are being discriminated against that it's unbelievable that anyone could still be claiming otherwise.
	All I can try and do is to keep chipping away, pointing out the facts.
	I mean, all the information I give here is not my figures.
	They're not things that I've brought up.
	These are all the government's own figures.
	And I try and point out to the government that actually they pass laws which are flying in the face of their own figures.
	Which is bizarre.
	But I think there's all sorts of reasons.
	And also, like I said, it's also about the tyranny of the majority.
	In Parliament, it's very easy just to go along with the accepted wisdom and be part of that kind of agenda.
	It's the easiest thing in the world to do.
	It's very difficult to stand up and actually say something different to the accepted wisdom.
	I'm not joking when I say that Philip Davies is going into the lion's den and he is going in to challenge this kind of tribalistic cult of feminism.
	And he's doing it almost on his own.
	It's not like he has mass support in Parliament.
	So, I mean, if you do want to send him a message and say, look, I really appreciate what you're doing, you can always email him at his public email address, which is on the screen.
	And I'll leave a link in the description.
	And I'm sure, I've never spoken to Philip Davies, but I'm sure that he would appreciate some kind of support for continuing to chip away to plow through the nonsense and the pressure and the slander that they will throw at him.

▲