Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Intersectional Police Arrest a TERF

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 10, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

16:09

The Intersectional Police Arrest a TERF

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Positive news regarding the harassment I have received in recent weeks from transgender hostile feminists.
	Tonight I have been informed by Hertfordshire Police that they have arrested a 38 year old woman from the Hitchin area on suspicion of harassment and malicious communications.
	Following an interview whilst in custody, the suspect has now been released under investigation while further evidence is gathered from seized electronic devices.
	In due course, a report will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to charging the suspect with harassment and malicious communications.
	This suspect who has been arrested is believed to be behind two troll accounts, one of which was set up for the sole purpose of harassing me and sharing confidential information about me.
	The swift action of Hertfordshire Police sends a very clear signal that transphobia and harassment will not be tolerated.
	Troll account owners will be traced and the full force of the criminal law applied when appropriate.
	I will not be naming the suspect or the Twitter accounts involved.
	Once the criminal process is concluded, I will make a further statement in due course.
	Tonight, a very clear message has been sent to those who wish to harass transgender people online.
	You will be traced, you will be caught, and you will answer for your hate.
	That was a series of tweets from someone called Stephanie Hayden, who describes herself as a current affairs commentator, lawyer, into travel and cats, described as a dangerous troll by the Times.
	Stephanie Hayden is a transgender woman, as in she was born a man and then transitioned to being a woman and now is actively persecuting someone who refuses to call her a woman.
	Stephanie Hayden is an intersectional activist and the person that she has reported to the police and managed to get arrested is a lady called Kate Scottow who goes on Twitter under the pseudonym of Dr. Fanny Craddock.
	She describes herself in her bio as I'm the one that your mother told you to listen to.
	Hashtag gendercritical hashtag radfem.
	Kate Scottow is a trans exclusionary radical feminist and I just want to let you all know that I called it.
	I told you that this is what they would do.
	I told everyone that the insectional feminists are going to criminalize the TERFs, the transgender exclusive radical feminists.
	I told everyone that this was going to happen.
	They are now using the full force of law on people I otherwise would frankly find myself rather disgusted by.
	But unfortunately for the insectional advocates, they deserve to have freedom of speech as well, even if the things that they say are offensive.
	The Daily Mail have reported on this.
	They say mother38 is arrested in front of her children and locked in a cell for seven hours after calling a transgender woman a man on Twitter.
	That is why she was arrested by the police for misgendering someone on Twitter.
	Is there anyone who thinks that's an acceptable use of police time, let alone an infringement on the woman's rights for being able to speak her mind, no matter whether you consider what she said to be factually accurate or not?
	Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter over so-called dead naming.
	The 38 year old from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and remains under investigation.
	And more than two months after her arrest on December the 1st, she has neither her mobile phone nor her laptop returned, which she says is hampering her studies for a master's in forensic psychology.
	Needless to say, none of this is acceptable in any way, shape or form.
	It does not matter what this woman calls another woman or man, whichever you want to classify her as, on Twitter.
	That is not the police's business.
	None of that is a malicious communication, no matter how offensive it is.
	In fact, the very idea of offence being classified as a form of malicious communication just goes to show all the more that section 127 of the Communications Act needs to be repealed because this is being used in ways for which it was not designed.
	This is an unacceptable use of this law and it is being used politically because the argument that the TERFs and the intersectionals are having is a political argument.
	Confirming the arrest, Hertfordshire Police said, we take all reports of malicious communication seriously.
	I am absolutely sure you do.
	But have you considered that there are some things that should not be considered to be malicious communication?
	And calling a woman a man or a man a woman or a man a man or a woman a woman is one of those things.
	I really fail to see how the police could even begin to consider justifying this without invoking intersectional ideology.
	And that, my dear police, goes against principle five of the apolitical police.
	You would be adopting a political position with which to persecute one kind of feminist for the gratification of another.
	You should not be getting involved in political schisms within feminism.
	You should not be arresting some women for offending other women or men or however you want to classify them.
	This is not something the police should be doing.
	You are not equipped for it.
	It is not appropriate for your function.
	You are doing the wrong thing by interfering in this situation.
	And I think it's important to note that Stephanie Hayden is the person who got sitcom writer Graham Lynan a verbal harassment warning by West Yorkshire Police after she reported him for referring to her by her previous names and pronouns on Twitter.
	I don't care.
	And I don't see why anyone else should care.
	And I certainly don't see why the police should care.
	If she doesn't like what this other woman is saying to her on Twitter, then she should just block them.
	High court papers obtained by the mail on Sunday detail how Miss Scottow is accused of a campaign of targeted harassment against Miss Hayden, allegedly motivated by her status as a transgender woman.
	The papers claim that as a toxic debate raged online over plans to allow people to sell ideas and gender, Mrs. Scottow tweeted defamatory messages about Miss Hayden.
	She is also alleged to have used the council in two names to harass, defame and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was racist, xenophobic and a crook, and mocking her as a fake lawyer.
	I have no idea if she's a fake lawyer or not, and I really don't care about Miss Scottow's opinion on who is racist, xenophobic or a crook.
	But there is no denying that biologically, Stephanie Hayden is a male.
	That is simply a fact of life.
	Any kind of test that we do on Stephanie Hayden will reveal this to be the truth and reality of Stephanie Hayden's biological condition.
	So whether you like it or not, this is a factually true statement.
	And now we have the police criminalizing a woman who, by all accounts, is pretty abhorrent in her own right for saying something that is factually accurate.
	Miss Scottow has denied harassing or defaming Miss Hayden and says she holds a genuine and reasonable belief that a human cannot practically speaking change sex.
	But Deputy Judge Jason Coppel QC issued an interim injunction that bans her from posting any personal information about Miss Hayden on social media, referencing her as a man or linking her to her former male identity.
	How exactly has the judge justified this?
	I mean the Daily Mail don't tell us and I don't have a copy of the court transcript unfortunately.
	But I mean this is pretty ridiculous isn't it?
	I don't think judges should be able to tell people how they can and can't address one another?
	That's absolutely ridiculous.
	Unbelievable, frankly, whether the intersectional transgender feminists like it or not, the radical trans exclusionary feminists should have a right to voice their opinion on transgenderism.
	If you don't like it, you should block them.
	Kate Scottow apparently got her laptop and mobile phone back from the police.
	She said, I've just had a call from Hartz Police who have advised me that I can now collect my laptop and phone, which is good.
	However, I barely scraped a past my exam due to my notes being in their custody.
	My studies, my future, and my integrity have been compromised.
	Great, so who's the victim now?
	Is it the radical feminist who's going to assert female privilege, or is it the transgender intersectional feminist who's going to assert trans privilege as being the most oppressed in this situation?
	This is like watching a spider and a scorpion get into a fight.
	I really don't care which one wins and frankly I want to drop a brick on the pair of them.
	But like I said, I told you that this was going to happen.
	I told you that the intersectional feminists have frankly taken over the legal system and are imposing their ideology on Britain.
	And they will use this power that they have gained to persecute their political opponents, which they are.
	And if you think I'm taking it too far by saying it's only the police arresting the political enemies of intersectional radical ideologues, well, it looks like the prisons are going to get transgender wings in order to house transgender criminals because apparently when transgender criminals, as in male to female trans people, are left alone with women in women's prisons, they end up raping them.
	The prison service is to stop many transgender inmates, including sex offenders, serving their sentences in women's prisons.
	Justice Minister said that the government was revising guidelines that said the great majority of trans prisoners should be allowed to experience this system in the gender in which they identify.
	Options now under consideration include clustering trans prisoners in special wings or sections of wings, and a number of high-risk trans inmates have already been moved back to men's prisons.
	The problem that you have here is that goes against the catechism that trans women are women.
	If trans women are women, there is no justification to have special wings of prisons for transgender people, because they're just women after all.
	This is a tacit admission from the government that there is an underlying biological reality to the idea of transitioning and the gender roles of man and woman that cannot simply be fulfilled by being ideologically orthodox.
	By saying transgender women are women is not preventing the transgender women from raping real biological women.
	And now the British government has to come to terms and find a solution to this new problem.
	Well, I'm glad that's not my job.
	Ministers acted after Karen White, a convicted sex offender who retains her male genitalia, was allowed into New Hall Women's Prison near Wakefield, where she sexually assaulted two female prisoners.
	Are we going to make it some sort of requirement that if a transgender person wants to be housed in a woman's prison, that they're going to have to be devoid of their male genitalia?
	I mean, you know, the insectional ideologues would screech at the idea, because obviously there's no connection between gender and your genitalia, in their opinion, because they're very sane and sensible people who certainly represent reality as the rest of us understand it.
	The Justice Minister said, we take the Karen White case very seriously.
	New guidelines will be published shortly to ensure that the policy continues to strike the right balance between ensuring that all female prisoners are kept safe and that transgender prisoners have their rights respected.
	What rights exactly do you feel are being violated if a biologically male person is placed in a male prison?
	What rights are being violated?
	I don't think you can, I don't think you name them.
	Because I don't think the right to be in the prison of your choosing is a right.
	I think that would be a privilege because it's not their business what prison they go to.
	They go to prison because they've committed a crime, and it's out of their hands, surely.
	I mean, what rights are you talking about?
	Name them!
	And of course, Turf campaigners are thrilled about this.
	The change was seized on by campaigners as plans to allow people to self-identify.
	Nicola Williams of Fair Play for Women said, it's an admission that allowing males to self-identify as women and letting them into women's spaces is dangerous.
	And that's true.
	There is no doubt about it.
	There is no doubt that there are men who identify as women to gain access to women's spaces in order to rape these women.
	That's the case that they're talking about, is where this has happened, is an example of this happening.
	And this is certainly not going to stop in the future, is it?
	But it doesn't matter to the intersectional campaigners who just want ideological conformity, political correctness, if you will, enforced on the rest of the country.
	And for some reason, the police are going to do it.
	Actual rights that we can name, such as the right to free speech, are no longer relevant.
	It does not matter if you feel that you have a right to free speech.
	These transgender people, their privilege of not having their feelings hurt apparently trumps your right.
	Now, I personally would consider that to be the actions of a new aristocracy.
	You aren't allowed to speak in a way to a certain class of people who are born in a certain way, in a way that offends them.
	That to me would be the description of an aristocracy.
	But what do I know?
	I'm just someone whose gender identity matches their biological sex.
	I should probably check my privilege and shut the fuck up.
	But I tell you what, I really do have to start questioning the competence of the people doing this as a BBC investigation found that more than 800 Hertfordshire police didn't even have background checks.
	Hertfordshire Constabulary declared that 831 police officers had not undergone the stricter vetting introduced under the new guidelines, which states that all new staff must have rigorous background checks while serving officers should be retrospectively checked every 10 years.
	The guidelines were introduced after Her Majesty's Inspectorate saw too many cases of corruption and abuses of power.
	Well, I would suggest that persecuting one wing of feminism at the behest of the other to be an abuse of power and corruption.
	But unfortunately, that's not going to be how the Hertfordshire Police interpret it.
	They're going to interpret this as morally correct, because this is what their diversity training will have taught them.
	And really, if we're going to look for the source of this problem, then surely we're going to have to get to the very top.
	We're going to have to go to the most senior police officer in the country and see what their opinion on all of this is and see if we can't identify the font from which all of this is flowing.
	Met Police Chief, I'm a bit different.
	Metropolitan Police Commissioner Christida Dick believes that being a bit different has encouraged others who feel a bit different to join the force.
	Britain's most senior police officer said being female and openly gay made unlikely recruits think they could have a go at policing.
	But she said her sexuality was one of the least interesting things about her.
	She also said that female police officers should make up half the force.
	In the long term, in order for us to have the best of the best, I would like it to be 50-50, she told the host of the show.
	How on earth are you going to know that you've got the best of the best on the police force when you have artificially pushed the police force into hiring more of one type of person than another?
	If you weren't previously inclined to hire these people on the basis that they were excellent police officers and are in fact adding a new vector by which to judge them by the fact that their gender, for instance, I would suggest you aren't hiring on the case of them being the best, aka, a meritocratic procedure.
	You are hiring them for other reasons.
	And I would suggest perhaps that it's got something to do with the word diversity.
	Britain's police force is now an intersectional police force.
	They follow the ideological precepts of intersectionality and they actively criminalise those people who reject them.
	This is Britain in 2019.
	Get used to it.
	And as a quick follow-up to the previous video that I did about this, the police have apologised for the handling of a complaint about Margaret Nelson's comments that offended some members of the transgender community.
	She was asked, if you recall, to stop blogging about gender issues and her opinion on them, and she told the police that she wasn't going to because she was free to do so.
	If the police are offering an apology for this, they know that what they were doing is wrong.

▲