All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
33:08
#Swindon Debates： ＂I Won't Accept Your Apology.＂
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right.
Hi Claire, my name's Carl.
It's lovely to meet you.
I see that you've come out with anti-racist and anti-fascist protesters.
Yeah.
I assume you would call yourself an anti-racist and anti-fascist.
Yes.
Could you tell me what you positively believe?
Like instead of saying I'm anti-this, what are you for?
I'm for people to be able to believe what they want to believe, but to sort of do so without having kind of veiled or what could be perceived as veiled threats sort of said to them.
Sorry, gents, gents, we're trying to interview here, sorry.
Okay, cool.
Just, you know, respect for the lady.
Okay.
Sorry, sorry, Karen.
Yeah, so I think that, you know, there's a way of kind of phrasing things that it can be made to look as if it's innocent, but it's actually not.
And I think that, you know, the reason I've come here today is to ask you about the content of your tweet to Jess Phillips.
I understand you wanted to make a point about freedom of speech.
I understand she did something that you perceive to be objectionable.
I don't quite know why you wouldn't apply the same grace to her as you do to yourself, but nevertheless, I would like to understand why that particular comment.
because I knew they wouldn't be able to resist it.
What did they being?
Jess Phillips, the media, the Westminster establishment.
Surely there's lots of things they wouldn't be able to resist.
You could have said anything that, you know, inflammatory, but you chose that particular thing.
And I want to understand why.
That's what I've just said.
I honestly thought, and I believe and I was correct in this, that they wouldn't be able to ignore it.
Because I've tried to engage with all of these people.
For example, Jess Phillips, she's got a long history of being...
How have you tried to engage with them?
I'm about to tell you.
Jess Phillips has a long history of, frankly, in my opinion, being a bigot.
I'm concerned about this kind of...
But why isn't she allowed to be if you believe in freedom of speech?
Hang on, let me explain myself.
So I find it deeply concerning that we have politicians like that in the Parliament.
I've tried to engage with them, I've emailed them, I've tweeted them, I've tried to just speak to them as normal people, and I've been blocked at every turn.
I've been ignored because I have no particular means of compelling them to listen.
There's no reason they have to.
I'm just a guy on the internet.
I have nothing over them.
And so I thought, right, okay, well, if I have to become a free speech extremist, I will take this extreme position and I will say something that I know they can't resist.
And lo and behold, here we are.
But why that particular thing?
Because they couldn't resist it.
It purely as a result of the future.
Yeah, there's lots of things they wouldn't have been able to resist.
Why that particular one?
Because I knew that that would work.
And what also does hashtag anti-feminism mean?
Oh, I think feminism is terrible.
I think that it defines women as victims and I don't believe women are victims.
It doesn't define victims.
Of course.
In what ways does it define them as victims?
Well, in what way does feminism have any legitimacy if women are not being oppressed by men?
What do you mean?
Well, how is feminism legitimate if women are not being oppressed by men?
Women are oppressed by men.
I don't agree.
Well, you've got a lady here disagrees.
Why do you feel that way?
Because they are.
Over the world they're oppressed by men.
Well, yeah, but have you got to do that?
Your comment to Jess Phillips.
I know you're trying to send it off as being, you know, just to create controversy, but I think that was a particular choice of phrase as an oppressive phrase.
It wasn't just about controversy, it was also an oppressive thing.
So I, as an individual who has no power, is oppressing an elected MP.
Of course, Jeff, you use that kind of terminology.
I don't agree.
Why that?
Well, then you don't agree.
I think so.
I think to myself, why would you choose of all the controversial things you could say?
Why that?
And also, I saw your response to the journalist as well that asked you a question.
And you said something about, well, you know what, I think if a woman's being a massive bitch, then I can be a complete dick.
So what I'd also like to know is, for all the people that maybe have been complete dicks to you on the internet or anywhere else, male, how many of them have you said that to?
Well, it'd have no effect saying that to them.
I'd say something like they can't get it up, wouldn't they?
I don't know, because I don't think in your way of thinking, so I don't know what you might say.
So to me, that says there was a particular reason why you chose that particular insult to Jess Phillips.
Yeah, I do.
And I think it was to be oppressive.
It was a sexual, it was a comment around sexual violence, which is, by its very definition, is oppressive.
Are you saying that rape isn't oppressive?
Can I talk?
Can I speak now?
Yeah.
Can I speak uninterrupted?
Can I speak uninterrupted?
Yeah, sure.
Thank you.
Right.
Like I said, I knew they wouldn't be able to resist that.
I knew I would be able to force them to acknowledge that there was principled opposition to the things that they are doing.
I do not, in principle, agree that men are oppressing women.
I do not know.
Do you agree that rape is?
No, hang on, you said I could speak.
Now, Jess Phillips was at the time taking part in something called Reclaim the Internet.
Now, this was described by Spike's Ella Whelan as an insidious form of Orwellian control over the internet to somehow expand free speech by restricting what can be said.
And I was making the point, and again, this is a principal point, that you cannot really trust anyone to be a censor.
I mean, who would you pick to censor what you have to say on the internet?
Do you mean do I name them?
Yeah, name someone you would trust.
There isn't anyone I've actually.
Exactly.
Exactly, right?
And now, I think.
But that doesn't mean that I think anything should be said that it's a free form, and that's all right.
Hang on.
And so now I had presented this prior, and Jess are blocking.
I have gone to anyone involved with this, they're not interested.
And there's no way I've got compelling them.
So I have to prick them.
I have to make them sit up and say, I get that.
I get that.
I get that.
What you think is a justification.
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I get what you're saying.
I get it was designed to be controversial.
I get the idea of controversy.
Politicians do it quite a lot.
Of course.
Why that particular thing?
Of all of the other controversial things you could have said, why that?
Because I knew it would work.
Because you knew that it was particularly sensitive.
Yes.
Particularly emotive.
Yes.
Particularly oppressive.
I don't agree that that is a form of oppression.
Of course it's a form of oppression.
Well, how do you define oppression?
The law sees it.
Well, oppression is when you kind of limit somebody's free will.
Well, it's cruel.
And sort of hold them down.
Which, by its very definition.
A tweet is not holding anyone down.
Rape is.
How would you define it?
Well, the dictionary defines it as cruel or unjust treatment over a prolonged period of time.
How would you define rape?
Forcible sexual content.
And what does that involve when it's forcible?
Well, what do you mean?
Well, it's oppressive, isn't it?
It ought to be oppressive.
I haven't raped anyone.
No, I know you haven't, but it's that particular thing.
So why are you asking me about rape?
Because you're the one that chose that particular.
Of all the controversial things you could have said, that particular thing.
And I think it was because you knew it was, yes, controversial, but it was controversial for that very reason.
It's about forcible sexual assault.
It's not a joke in my life.
It does oppress people.
In fact, it's well documented that it's used as a form of oppression.
But I'm not talking about rape.
You're talking about oppression.
Yeah, but I'm talking about wouldn't even rape.
But you still use it.
I wouldn't say anything.
I wouldn't go on a date with you.
I wouldn't even speak to you.
They would have responded to that.
They might have done.
They absolutely responded.
I wouldn't even vote for you.
You wouldn't respond to that.
But you said that.
They wouldn't respond to anyone.
I don't accept your explanation.
Well, you don't accept it.
I think I agree you knew what it was about.
And I think that is the very basis of why you said it.
And what I'd like to know is whether you would say it to a man or anybody else.
Yes, I'm an equalist.
I really, really don't think that's the case.
I absolutely would.
I really don't think so.
And I'd also like to say that.
But there is video footage of me doing so on stage in America.
I ask you.
So there is actually video footage of me doing it.
Right, and I'd also like to know how you'd feel if somebody said that to any female that you cared about.
Well, I'd say at least you're safe.
My daughter's a rape kicker.
All right, come on, mate.
Come on, come on.
Well, then you, you know, where can you go then if that's the case?
Where can you go?
Listen, right.
And this, this, you're getting hung up on this, but I really think that there is a much deeper and more important conversation for us to have regarding your opinion of men and women in this country.
You don't know what my opinion of men are.
You just told me that you think women are being oppressed by men.
Yeah, in some things, they're oppressed, of course they are.
Well, that's the thing.
But just because you're not doesn't mean everybody else isn't.
Well, I'm speaking for all women.
But this is the point.
Some women are oppressed, I say men.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, but the way you frame it is, I mean, you just came out and said all women are being oppressed by all men.
I don't agree.
No, I don't think that.
I don't agree either.
Well, you said that initially.
You said you are oppressed by some men.
But some men are oppressed by some women.
Well, that's what we're talking about.
You didn't say it to a woman.
A man.
You said it to a woman.
Yeah, a specific individual.
Yeah.
For a specific reason.
I wouldn't say it to you.
So what, so.
You don't seem like Jess Phillips.
You seem like a nice person with genuine concerns, but she's not.
So why does she deserve it?
That doesn't justify me.
Because she is in hell.
Because she is in parliament.
And when Philip Davies, MP, comes and says, look, I want to have a debate about men's issues.
Why are they failing?
Why are they committing suicide?
Why is suicide the leading cause of death for men under 45?
And she laughed at him.
She laughed.
And you know for a fact.
My uncle committed to it.
Yes, there's video of it.
There's video of it.
But you know, that's what she was laughing at.
Yes, there's video evidence of it.
And then she said, and I quote, you will get your debate when I get equal representation, right?
Now, that's a ridiculous standard.
How can Philip Davies make the general public vote 50% women in this parliament?
We just don't do that this way in this country.
It's completely beyond his control.
She may as well have said, you'll get your representation when you turn black or when you turn female or something like that.
He just can't do that.
So that justifies what you said.
Sorry, I apologise.
What about a little bit more?
Focus on board, not.
Sorry, sorry, give me two seconds.
Sorry, Karen.
No, I just still, I'm still interested to know why that particular, why that particular insult.
I don't think you've answered it.
You've said you want it to be controversial.
I get that.
Well, I just knew she would be offended by it.
So you did do it to oppress her.
I don't agree that offence is a form of oppression.
Well, it depends, unless you know the circumstances of a person, of course it can be.
Well, if that's the case, then I'm consistently offended by what Jess Phillips does, and she's been oppressing me for years.
I mean, if you're right, then all the courts in this land are wrong.
I agree.
I think that every single court that has offence laws and enacts them is wrong, yes.
Well, even when they pass judgments on rape victims, you're saying that that's not right.
Well, no.
No.
In principle, I'm not.
No, no, because rapists have committed an actual damageable offence.
You can demonstrate the harm.
You can demonstrate the harm that a rape does.
You can't demonstrate the harm that, say, Count Dankular's joke made.
You can't necessarily demonstrate the harm that rape does.
You can make an educated guess at it.
Can you not have a rape victim who can see the physical?
The thing is, you can't quantify the entire package of harm.
Well, I don't know.
I don't agree with the equivalence that you could say what you say as a tweet doesn't really have an impact of harm at all.
Well, what's the harm of the impact of the tweet?
Well, it depends on the individual that you're saying it to, doesn't it?
It depends on their life story.
It depends on the other people looking at it.
Guys, come on.
Well, yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
And you can't demonstrate any harm from this tweet.
So you're not.
But I also don't understand.
You're just arguing in the abstract here.
I'm arguing.
I'm actually arguing.
It's not abstract that you actually tweeted.
Those words.
Yeah, but you actually are abstract.
But there is no harm demonstrable from that.
But I can actually show demonstrable harm from, say, denying having a debate on male issues.
I can demonstrate that harm.
Come on, otherwise the cops will come down.
Barry, Barry, Barry.
Come on, man.
Come on.
I appreciate that, man, but you're representing me here.
Come on.
Come on, Barry.
And the guy who's got a lot of money.
Sorry about this.
Well, you know, I'm all right, aren't I?
Well, yeah.
Well, I think it's both baz, mate.
Honestly, I know who grabbed you, I know, but come on, man, come on.
Yeah, I'm here for a conversation with anyone who wants to have a conversation.
No physical alterations, please.
Come on.
We're not French.
Come on, we're Brits.
We talk about these things.
I also want to know why you wouldn't apologise for it.
Even when some members of your party have kind of encouraged you to do so.
Why you wouldn't just say, all right, I want it to be controversial, but it was out of place, it was kind of, you know.
It was disrespectful, actually.
Even though it's phrased in the negative, which I think is no excuse.
It was deliberately disrespectful.
So why won't you apologise?
Wouldn't it have been the best political decision to have done so?
I don't agree, because I don't think that they're asking in good faith.
Well, I'm asking in good faith.
Then I'm sorry that you're offended.
And what about everybody else that would have been offended?
Well, they can come to me and ask me if I'll apologise.
Hang on, and if I feel that they are genuinely offended, if they come to me and say, look, I'm actually really upset by this, then I will apologise to those people.
So what you'll do is you'll say, so that publicly people know, because maybe not everybody that was offended by it is here today and can hear you say this, you'll actually say publicly on social media and whatnot, all those who are offended, if you contact me, I will apologise.
Possibly.
Will you apologise to Jess Phillips?
Absolutely not.
Because she's not operating.
According to you, you've got the result you wanted.
So why not apologize?
Because she is not operating this in good faith.
I mean, do you think I'm going to get an apology from her for laughing at male suicide?
Well...
Probably not, right?
Can't you be the bigger person?
If that's what you believe, can't you be the bigger person and apologise?
I don't see why I should give her an apology if she's not prepared to reciprocate.
I mean, I haven't actually seen it.
I'm not convinced she was laughing at motherfuckers.
I promise you, I promise you.
No, I don't want everybody going, yeah, she was.
But no, I promise you, there is a great deal.
I've covered this many times on my channel for years now, because this is something they keep bringing up, and I'm glad they keep bringing it up, because I can keep showing this footage where she does this.
And then afterwards, she was having an interview on the BBC with Philip Davies, where she kept cutting him off and belittling him for being concerned about these things.
And Philip Davies is not like me.
He's a much nicer man than I am.
I've seen you do the same.
I've seen you cut people off and belittle them, so I know you're going to justify it on being, it's your platform, it's your persona if you like.
I accept that I'm like that.
I accept that I'm like that.
So why is it alright for you to do it?
And why then do you object to somebody else's?
Because all I'm doing is following Jess Phillips.
Is it because she's female?
I'm just following her.
Is it because she's female?
Is what because she's female?
That you think that it's okay for you to do it, but you find it objectionable when she does it?
No, I'd do it to a man as well.
That's all I asked you.
Well, no, it's not that I'm not.
And I've never seen you do it to a man actually.
I've seen you do it to a woman.
There is lots of women.
And you've accepted that you did it to Jess Phillips to get your point over there.
There is lots of footage that shows me being disrespectful to mental.
I'm an equal opportunities offender in this regard.
Right, but so just to be clear, it's alright for you to do it.
That's justifiable.
It's like your persona, you know, it's fine.
If somebody else does it as part of their political platform, it's not alright.
They need to be put in their place.
I don't agree it's a fair thing.
And they need to be put in their place by having rape kind of, you know, fired at them, even if it's fired in the negative.
Well, whatever it is that will get them paying attention to the fact that there's principled opposition to what they're doing.
But is that okay?
You're saying that's okay.
That's the answer that I want to say.
I think so.
It's okay for you to do it, but not for other people.
No, I don't think that.
I think it's okay for you to do it.
To me, that's what you've just said.
Do you think it's okay for you to do?
That it's okay for people?
If you feel...
You objected.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Okay, let me talk for a minute, right?
Now, if you're in a position where you have principled opposition to the power structures, the powers that be, and they are not listening to you, they won't hear of anything you have to say, and they'll deliberately ignore you.
Hang on, hang on.
And don't shake your head at me.
I've been doing this five years, okay?
I know exactly what the power structures are like.
Right.
And you know that there is one thing that you can do that's offensive to get them to pay attention.
Now I get that.
Listen, listen, listen.
Anyone is justified in taking that kind of action in that kind of context.
Right.
So, if that was the basis, you wanted people to listen to you, you've had a lot of publicity after this whole thing's been kind of reignited.
You probably, arguably, had all of the platform you could have ever wanted, or any aspiring politician could have asked for, and yet you chose not to take it.
So, why, if you feel so shut down, at the moment that you had that opportunity and said, right, you want to listen to what I have to say, here's what I have to say.
Why have you kind of gone not engaged?
I said exactly what I wanted to say.
They are dirty, dirty smear merchants.
What they are doing is gatekeeping for like a Westminster moral standard that I don't agree with.
I don't agree that words have.
When that journalist asked you in that press conference, and there were a lot of cameras on you, you had a platform then.
Why did you not sort of engage with it?
Why did you just close her down?
Because I don't recognise them as moral authorities.
What's that got to do with anything?
You're not allowed to do that.
You want to know what this is all, and the platform was there.
It doesn't stack up with what you're saying.
Okay, can I. Right, no, the question is: how the journalists treat the regular people of this country.
That is fundamentally what this is all about.
And I don't recognise them as moral authorities.
So, when they come to me with a particularly pointed moral question that's made in bad faith, I'm not going to engage with it in good faith, and I don't see any obligation to do it.
Why is it in bad faith?
She asked the question, I wanted to know the answer to that question.
Lots of other people, I don't think it's the people that are still around us now, but lots of other people that I know of, you're just going to have to take anecdotally that I've heard of it, and I've seen it on social media, the condemnation.
Lots of people would have wanted to know the answer to that question.
I appreciate you might have felt it was a bear trap.
Whether it was or whether it wasn't, I can't say.
But you had the platform, you had the opportunity there.
Why didn't you take it?
Because I don't need them.
I agree.
You just said that that's the reason that you made the rape comment in the first place.
Well, that was to get Jess Phillips.
No, no, I have a platform.
But I need them to listen.
I need them to understand that there is opposition.
I don't need them to speak.
I have a platform of my own.
I've built it block by block, subscriber by subscribing.
Why say that to Jess Phillips then?
You don't like her.
I get that, right?
But why that?
Why that comment?
Because she couldn't resist it.
But your answer isn't making sense to me.
Well, why not?
But the sequence of events doesn't make sense to me.
You say it to get a platform because you can't get heard by whoever, wherever, right?
So you get a controversy in the way you want it to happen.
Then the controversy reignites two years later, which presumably, if you want, the platform is to your favour.
People, a journalist asks you in a press conference, whatever she asked you.
You say it was a question in bad faith.
I think it was a reasonable question that I wanted to know the answer to.
And instead of answering it and saying whatever it is you want to say, it was just closed down.
Because next, but that was that.
Okay, yeah, because there is no justifying anything to these people.
Because they're not asking them to give them a question.
You're talking to the public.
I know you don't let the journalists.
The answer would have gone out to the public.
I wasn't talking to the public.
I talk to the public every day on my YouTube channel.
It was a publication.
I have a very large YouTube channel.
That's the public.
I'm your public call.
But what's my father, you're public, and I wanted to know the answer to that question.
Yeah, okay.
And you didn't give the answer to that.
I have.
I have given you now.
Now you have to.
I did it.
Because I've come and sat down and asked it face to face.
Exactly.
But why not then?
Because the journalists are the problem.
They are the problem, right?
They have to be put in their place.
You could have said a lot more about your message.
I don't need to.
Everyone who supports me, all these people know about my message.
They know exactly what I'm saying.
But what about the people that don't?
That's what you've just justified that comment on.
Then they now know I exist, and if they're interested, if you're not going to get it.
I've heard your explanation.
They can come up with a paper.
But I don't accept it.
Well, you don't have to accept it.
I don't accept it because your actions later on contradict what you've just said.
In what way?
Sorry.
I've just explained in what way.
Well, I don't agree.
But I have a question, right?
Did I put that tweet in front of you?
What do you mean?
Did I put that tweet in front of you?
No.
So who did?
I don't know who did.
I can't tell you.
Well, where did you hear about it?
I saw it on the internet.
And if it was, well, what, on the news?
On the BBC?
No, no, no, no, no.
It came up in a.
Where?
I don't know.
I can't remember where.
Well, do you not think that the press and the people spreading it around have actually a moral duty, if it is as offensive as you claim?
It is offensive.
That's subjective.
To you, you find it offensive.
And it not being offensive is subjective.
Okay.
Yes.
Yes.
But do you not think that the people who have put that in front of your face have a moral duty to be more careful about that?
No, I don't.
And I've tried to obfuscate your moral duty onto other people.
So you think it's acceptable that someone digs up a three-year-old tweet on a platform I'm not even on now and puts that in front of your face to wind you up.
Well, aren't you standing for European Parliament?
Yeah.
But don't people deserve to know?
What sort of things you do and what that is?
What difference does that make?
So that was my question to you.
Why that?
No, why do they dig that?
That is the question.
Why that?
Do you understand that?
They are manipulating you.
They're not manipulating you.
Of course they are.
Well, they're here now manipulating you.
No, when you first saw that on the internet.
You could be said to be manipulating me.
No, I'm not putting this off.
This could be said to be a big exercise in manipulation.
I don't see how.
I don't know what's going to be.
I don't see how you can say that.
If you can let me finish, right?
When they dig this up, they think, right, you are going to be bothered by this.
Hey, go, look at this, aren't you offended?
Come at this guy.
You're being manipulated there.
You don't know what I stand for.
Because anybody that did it, I would be disgusted at anybody.
Exactly, they know that.
And then I would be doubly disgusted if they didn't take the opportunity to stand up and say, this is what it was about.
It was whatever you think is the justification for it.
And I don't want to apologise to Jess Phillips because I don't like her, but to anybody else that was offended, I apologise.
Well, I've apologised to you.
Do you accept it?
No, I don't, because it doesn't make sense.
Why do you think I wouldn't apologise?
Because I don't, I don't accept it.
It doesn't make sense.
You're absolutely right.
It doesn't make sense for me to apologise to you for something that wasn't sent to you.
This is exactly my point proven.
No, it's not.
No.
Yes, it is.
Because it wasn't sent to me.
Then why did you ask for apologies?
I find it offensive.
Why would you ask an apology if you weren't apologised?
Anybody would think that that is a kind of, however it's phrased, be an appropriate thing to try and insult people with whatever you try.
What can I do?
If you won't accept the apology, what can I do?
Well, I don't accept it.
You put me in an unwinnable position, so why would I apologise?
Because you've just said that you, you know, you don't want to apologise to anybody.
Yeah, but I don't speak for everybody that was offended.
No, but I've asked you personally, you.
And I'm asking you to apologise to everybody that was offended.
They can come to me and ask for an apology.
That's only likely, is it?
Well, then they don't want to go on, will they?
But if they say, I'm not going to accept your apology, why would I apologise to them?
Well, because they might do.
Yeah, but I already know that you won't, and I've already tried to.
Well, I don't speak for all those people.
I'm not asking you to speak for them.
I'm not speaking to you.
Do I accept it?
I'll accept your apology, but I don't accept your explanation and your justification.
Okay, well.
I don't accept it.
I think your actions have completely undermined what you said the reason was for putting those words.
Well, I don't see how you can even suggest that.
Because you have the opportunity nationally to get your message out there.
I have the opportunity every day.
That's my job.
I've been doing it for five years.
I've only seen one, one time when you had the opportunity to do it and you were directly asked about it, which kind of directly linked that event to that moment in the press conference, and you shut and you shut it down.
Absolutely.
Do you know why?
They aren't the gatekeepers anymore.
But you had the chance to speak for them.
They are not the gatekeepers.
You had the chance to speak all day every day.
Why are you speaking right now?
Well, no, you have your people up there filming what goes on so that there's a kind of parallel version.
So you could have easily got your message out, put it out there on your channel, put it out there on your site or whatever, unedited, if you want to think that that's an action.
And you didn't take that opportunity.
Yes, I did.
It's all up there now.
Not of you apologising.
Not of you apologising to the journalist.
I'm not apologising to the journalist.
No, no, you shut her down.
You shut that down.
Because she's not acting in good faith.
She won't accept my apology just like that.
And that's your subjective reason for not.
That's true, that's correct.
That's an explanation.
Then you don't have to.
I accept your apology to me.
Thank you.
I don't speak for everybody else that was offended by that, particularly Jess Phillips.
But your action subsequently.
So now that you no longer need to be offended by me, since I've apologised.
Yeah.
And we accept that once someone offers an apology, and you accept it, we move on and we don't bring it up again, correct?
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
What would be the point of giving an apology if we weren't going to move on from that point?
Right, well...
Why would I do it?
How do you want me to move on from it?
Forget that it happened?
Well, yeah, that's what an apology is, isn't it?
Not really, no.
No, no, no, no, no, it's not.
It's not.
Your apology is about your own behaviour, not.
So if your husband breaks your favourite lamp or something and he apologises, will you then the next day bring up that lamp?
Do you not think he'd be resentful about that?
He might be, I can't speak to him.
I think that's you being utterly unreasonable.
But I think you're being unreasonable.
I think you could, you know, people don't just apologise and then everything's okay.
I think that's the point of an apology.
And if you thought that was the point of an apology, why wouldn't that makes it even less understandable as to why you just wouldn't?
Because I know they won't accept it.
That's not for you to decide.
Absolutely not.
That's not for you to decide.
It absolutely is.
That's for them to decide.
Yeah, but they know.
I already know that.
That's your prejudgment then isn't it?
That's your prejudgement.
Yes, because I'm very familiar with how these people are.
These people.
Yeah, journalists.
I've accepted your apology.
I don't accept your explanation.
You're not part of the London bubble.
But even then.
I'm arguing with somebody that should not talk to you because I'm a media.
I don't agree you have accepted my apology.
Because you're still bringing it up.
No, I'm not.
I'm saying I've accepted your apology.
It's not your explanation.
Well, you don't have to explain it.
And you asked me to move on from it.
You don't have to accept my explanation.
And I don't really know what you mean by move on from it.
So let's talk about something else since you're here.
Let's talk about something else since you're here.
Okay, then.
How do you feel about mass immigration?
Why don't you tell me one of your policies that aren't to do with immigration?
Okay, I'd like to leave the European Union.
Or the European Union.
I would like to.
I'd like to end identity politics in this country.
And what's that exactly?
It's the privileging of groups over individuals.
Okay.
Do you mean like, give me an example of that.
But I'll give you an example.
You can have affirmative action for women.
So you choose to hire women specifically because they're women and not because they're men.
Women are a group.
Yeah.
You said that you don't want to put the rights of groups over the rights of individuals.
Yes.
So women are a group.
So how is that not doing exactly what you've just said you didn't want to do?
That is what I don't want to do.
You don't want to put the rights of...
I don't want to put the privileges of a group based on an identity above the rights of an individual.
Right.
So for example, if you're hiring for a position and you say, we're only going to hire women for this position, you may have men who are very well qualified for that position who are being sexually discriminated against because of what they are.
I think that's wrong.
And we do that all the time in this country and no one will stand up to it.
Well that also happens against women, doesn't it?
And very desperate and I'm against that.
But why should it be framed in that way?
It should surely be based on the individual.
But you could frame it in terms of men being discriminated against.
Yes, and now you're on my side.
I'm not on your side.
You are, because that's exactly what I'm arguing for.
Because the problem is the government does this.
The press do this.
The BBC does.
The BBC have jobs only open to non-white people.
I don't think that's true.
I don't care whether you think that's true.
That's on their website.
Look it up.
Okay, fine.
It's absolutely true.
Right.
I've been doing this for years.
There is a legitimate principled opposition to what they're doing.
And I have to get your attention to it, because you didn't know about this until now.
So after this, you can go away and look it up and say, BBC, B-A-M-E only jobs.
You'll find loads.
You'll find loads.
And I could accept it if it was like in front of the camera, or if it was for a show or something.
It was for like research positions.
That's a very overt position.
One example that you've actually highlighted.
But what about all those covert, subtle types of women or uncreated?
Can we not move the goalposts?
You are moving goalposts.
No, I'm not.
That's exactly what you're doing.
Please just stop.
Please just stop disagreeing with me on principle, right?
So you wanted to know what I was against.
And in this regard, this is something I'm definitely against.
And do you disagree?
Do you disagree that there shouldn't be jobs that are only open to non-white people?
I think that that should sometimes happen.
Right, so I consider you a bigot.
Well, that's your right, isn't it?
As far as I'm concerned, you're in favour of racial discrimination.
I'm in favour of disadvantaged groups being given opportunities that they might not otherwise had.
And to do that, you have to discriminate against other white people, don't you?
Against nerdy people, it is.
Not necessarily.
You have no choice.
By definition, to say that we're only going to hire non-white people is discriminatory against white people.
You can't explain that any other way.
I agree that some groups deserve to have the advantages that they haven't previously had.
Then you are no different to the Nazis in that regard.
Well.
That's what they felt about Germans against Jews.
And you are no different yourself.
I am absolutely different.
Because you're privileging a group that you feel disadvantaged.
No, I'm not.
I'm against the very concept of privileging groups.
I'm for individual rights.
No groups should have any privileges.
I don't want English privileges.
I don't want Scotch privileges.
I don't want Welsh privileges.
I don't want black privileges or Asian privileges or anything like this.
Women's privileges, men's privileges.
I want individuals to be treated as individuals.
That's what I want.
Right.
Okay.
So can you give me another example of something else that you've standardized?
Well, yeah, I think that we shouldn't be arresting people over jokes.
Who's got arrested over jokes?
Mark Meeken.
He was fined £800.
Who else has been arrested over jokes?
Well, no, no, you want an example.
There we go, right.
But you said people.
One person.
Was it Paul Thompson, I think his name was?
He was arrested over a joke.
There was a young lady in Liverpool who was arrested for posting rap lyrics on her Instagram page.
This is not something unique.
Thousands of people a year.
What should we be arresting people for?
Not for jokes.
But what should we be arresting for?
physical harmful crimes, not for jokes.
So you would support the arrest of someone who's kind of targeted a group rather than individuals?
Well, honestly, I don't think that people should be arrested for racism either.
You don't think they should be arrested for any form of racism?
Not violent.
No, no, no.
Yeah, I think that's a good distinction you're making there.
I think that obviously anyone who takes action should be arrested.
If I were to strike that chap there for any reason, in fact, it doesn't even matter why I struck you, right?
If I struck you, I should be arrested, right?
But if I say something to him, I don't think that should be an actionable arrestable offence.
Say that again, sorry.
If I say something to anyone, I don't think that should be an arrestable offence.
A threat to chaos shouldn't be a arrest.
Well, what's different?
That's incitement.
That's not a statement.
No, no, no.
If I threaten to kill you, that's not incitement, because I'm talking about myself.
Incitement is when you speak to other people and try and get them to work for you.
That's fair.
So you think I shouldn't be arrested for?
Actually, in principle, yes.
But if you wanted to compromise on that and say, look, I will accept people making horrible jokes or saying things I disagree with, but if someone says, I will do something and makes a threat, we should arrest them.
I'll say, okay, that's a compromise I can live with.
Right, so you would agree that there are some things that people say that should be arrested?
I can compromise on that, that's correct.
So it's going to be a very difficult line to draw between where you think.
I think it's quite simple.
Like you said, a threat, and I think threats are easily distinguishable.
I mean, it's an I will X.
I think it's very easy to delineate a threat from a joke or any other kind of statement, right?
If you say I don't like X, that's not a threat.
That's just a statement of opinion.
So I will X, that's a deliberate statement of intent, isn't it?
And so I think that's a very easily distinguished thing.
Personally, I don't think that should be, but I appreciate that there is a great depth of feeling that people think it should.
So you don't think that's an action.
And I could kill should be an arrestable apology.
I think only action should be arrestable.
Right, okay.
Because I'm a bit of a free speech extremist that way, but I can compromise on that.
So irrespective of the fear that it causes a person or how uncomfortable it makes them feel.
Because it can make it.
And unquantifiable harm, you don't think that it should be an arrestable attempt.
Listen, in that regard, I do agree with you.
If someone's threatening someone, I can agree by the argument you're making to me that that could be arrestable.
But in the current state that we're in, people are actually being arrested for jokes.
And I really have a problem with that.
Okay.
Thank you very much for this conversation.
And honestly, I'm sorry I offended you.
Yeah, I think you should.
If you want to persuade me as to the value of your apology, apologise to other people.
Because they haven't been here, they haven't been here to have their say, to hear your, to look you in the eye, and I can guarantee there are probably people out there far more insulted and even perhaps harmed and upset than I was.
I will certainly judge that on a case-by-case basis.
And I would like to see you put on your site what you've just said, if anybody wants to see it.
This will all go up.
So anyone will be able to see it.
I won't edit it or anything like that.
▲
Export Selection