Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 20, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:18:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #680

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 680 on Wednesday the 21st of June.
	I'm your host Harry, joined today by Stelios.
	Hello.
	And today what we're going to be talking about is the zero ounce UN burger, how the UK needs to abolish the Equalities Act, and finally we're going to be discussing students reacting against woke brainwashing.
	Without any further ado, let's get into the news.
	Right.
	Now, Harry, I don't know how you feel about commemoration.
	There are some people who don't like looking back, but there are some people who do, like myself.
	I want to say that I like days of commemoration.
	Do you like them?
	It depends what they're commemorating, but if it's something that I can be proud of or something that's important to me or my people, then I'm more than happy to commemorate.
	Okay.
	My personal favorite is my birthday.
	It's March 16, every year.
	You get presents.
	I get presents.
	I get gifts.
	I get people phoning me and telling, Hey Stelios, we wish you a happy life.
	It's wonderful.
	Must be nice.
	It is nice indeed.
	Now, there are other days of commemoration such as, you know, UK Armed Forces, I believe it is June 24th, US Veterans Day, November 11th, March 25th is Greek National Independence Day, And then we have some other international days of commemoration, such as, you know, commemoration of the victims of communism.
	I believe it is the 23rd of August.
	There's always confusion with these sources.
	There's also an international day against fascism and anti-Semitism.
	It is November 9.
	And Sunday the 18th of June was supposed to be Father's Day.
	It was Father's Day for me, but there are some people in the UN who have different opinions.
	I hate the UN.
	I despise the UN.
	Roundhouse kick the UN in Minecraft.
	I started watching at their program of International Day and their observances, and let's see the first link.
	It says here, the existence of international days predates the establishment of the United Nations, but the UN has embraced them as a powerful advocacy tool.
	And then we have, you know, things like, propositions like, each International Day offers many actors the opportunity to organize activities related to the theme of the day.
	Organizations and offices of the United Nations system and most importantly governments, civil society, the public and private sectors, school, universities and more generally citizens, make an international day a springboard for awareness-raising actions.
	They make it a springboard for propagandizing populations.
	Yeah, but awareness needs to be raised.
	Of what?
	That's an excellent question.
	I don't think they have good answers.
	Let's move forward, because there aren't any good answers.
	Now, who chooses them and how?
	It's the most representative organ of the organization, the General Assembly, which designates a particular date as an International Day.
	International Days are proposed to the UN General Assembly by Member States, The themes of international days are always linked to the main fields of action of the United Nations, namely the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of sustainable development, the protection of human rights, and the guarantee of international law and humanitarian action.
	Now, my personal favorite day of commemoration.
	Let's click the next link.
	This one.
	World Toilet Day, 19th of November.
	Still yet to hit India?
	Why are you laughing?
	It's not a joke.
	Shouldn't toilets be commemorated?
	Right, I can... Shouldn't we all celebrate toilets?
	I mean, for England, we got there maybe about 2,000 years ago.
	Whenever the Romans showed up is when we commemorate toilets from.
	But I understand the logic here.
	I can understand, I can see it in my mind's eye.
	I can see what the dick going for is.
	Not everywhere across the world has functioning sewage systems and waste disposal systems.
	Therefore, we need to celebrate the mighty toilets, the porcelain bowl of honesty and truth.
	This is on the 19th of November, which I believe is in about five months, and I think we should all meditate.
	Throughout these five months, we should all meditate and just bear in mind.
	Let's scroll down a bit on the key messages.
	I'm going to have a particularly large meditation on the 19th of November, I think.
	It says, key messages you should know on World Toilet Day 2022.
	I don't know why they put it 2022.
	Maybe they won't celebrate it this year or every week.
	They've decided we're done celebrating toilets.
	Everybody's over toilets now.
	No, this is a celebration that should remain intact.
	And as you will see, there are some days that the UN celebrates twice a year.
	So what about make it a toilet year?
	Everyone celebrates toilet day.
	As you can see, I decided to invest in toiletry and want to use the UN to spread the message about toilets.
	Okay, now some key messages.
	It says safe sanitation protects groundwater.
	Toilets that are properly sited and connected to safely managed sanitation systems collect, treat and dispose of human waste and help prevent human waste from spreading into groundwater.
	Sanitation must withstand climate change.
	Toilets and sanitation systems must be built or adapted to cope with extreme weather events.
	This is all true.
	So that services always function and groundwater is protected.
	Sanitation action is urgent.
	We're seriously off track to ensure safe toilets for all by 2030.
	With only eight years left, the world needs to work four times faster to meet our promise.
	Now let's click on the next link and see just for June if we could scroll down a bit.
	Just for June.
	Wait, I've just looked, I don't know if this is, perhaps the UN don't agree with this, but apparently the 19th of November is also International Men's Day, so they've chosen to have it line up with International Toilet Day.
	I don't think they celebrate Men's Day.
	Very cool UN, thank you.
	So let's just see the program just for June.
	So 1st of June is Global Day of Parents, Saturday the 3rd of June is World Bicycle Day, We could see other days such as, you know, what else to show.
	Did you point out World Refugee Day?
	World Refugee Day is on the 20th.
	21st of June, International Day of Yoga, International Day of the Celebration of the Solstice.
	So everybody watching this right now, please take the time to do some stretches, achieve oneness, find your Zen.
	Yeah, and basically stay up all night while doing yoga.
	The UN has such a packed program that these two days are celebrated on the same day.
	International Widow's Day.
	Do these women really want to be reminded by the UN on the 23rd?
	We also have International Asteroid Day to campaign against, you know, sexist space.
	You remember the accusation of astronomy as being a sort of sexist discipline.
	We have International Asteroid Day to tell off the bad asteroids.
	And I want to say before we talk about June 18, which is International Day for Countering Hate Speech, as well as International Day for Sustainable Gastronomy, I want you in the comments to send us some proposals for international days you want us to celebrate, such as, you know, my proposal is International Day of Backgammon Players with Tourette's Syndrome.
	It's a very niche day.
	I'm honestly shocked yours isn't International Arnold Day.
	International Day of Talking Like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	That's every day for Stelios.
	That should be a year.
	That should be all year, all round.
	You know, right before we started, he was going, have you seen FUBAR, the Arnold Schwarzenegger film?
	Yeah.
	Really good.
	OK, so I welcome your suggestions in the comments of the international days you want us to celebrate.
	Now, June 18 is supposed to be International Day Against Hate Speech.
	Now, speaking of hate speech and the attempts to deprive it, visit our website and just for £5 a month you can have access to all our premium content.
	And you could also watch this interview I had with Dr. David Thunder.
	Basically, I interviewed him about all sorts of topics, such as the new Irish anti-free speech bill.
	Oh yeah, that's gained quite a lot of traction, knowing about that.
	It's pretty terrible by the looks of it.
	Yes, and Captain Charlie the Beagle sent me a really good link today, and there is much more to it than I just want to point out as well, we've got an absolute wealth of videos and articles on the website and if you have trouble navigating it and trying to find what you want, I just want to reiterate again that recently we've been able to add a search function to the website that makes it far easier to find what you're looking for on there.
	Right.
	Okay.
	By all means, watch this interview.
	Dr. David Thunder is really outspoken and he speaks constantly for free speech.
	He has really interesting opinions on all sorts of matters.
	Just watch it.
	Now, let's go to the next link.
	And we start looking at the campaign of the UN if we could just have a look at that.
	Now for those who can't see and just listen, we have a sort of international day for countering hate speech and we have a figure with a smile holding a large heart that sort of shields him or her from a squadron of FFA piranhas.
	They all have slurs written on them for some reason.
	It's a squadron of flying foul-mouthed and angry piranhas.
	But you know, I really like this because it reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	Funnily, you mentioned before.
	Why?
	Because in the midst of action, this person is smiling.
	That's how he beat Predator.
	He beat him with love.
	Yeah, you went ugly.
	I won't say it.
	Arnold looked at the predator and said, hope not hate wins all.
	Say no to hate.
	But I really like this because it's positive attitude.
	It's someone in the midst of action just being cool with a smile.
	It's a message of empowerment.
	I think you're right.
	This sends the opposite message to the typical methods for countering hate speech.
	Normally the methods for countering hate speech is you wet yourself and then go and whine to somebody to tell off the person.
	It's essentially you're going to the teacher and you're tattling.
	This person just has a big smile on his face and says, no thank you.
	It's all about empowering the individual.
	I'm gonna grow up.
	I'm gonna be mature.
	Some people may say things I don't agree with.
	Well, I'm gonna answer with love.
	That's the message.
	But you have anticipated something.
	You'll see in a bit because it's Prophetic Harry.
	It's International Day of Prophecies.
	Professional pattern noticer over here.
	Okay, now let's go to the next link and we will see basically the UN specialist on hate speech.
	Alice Nderitu, UN advisor on genocide prevention.
	She explains dangers of intolerance and why we must all say no to hate.
	Genocide prevention.
	No child is born with hate.
	Hate is taught.
	These people occupy useless positions in useless organisations and get paid exorbitant amounts of money to tell people, by the way, did you know that genociding people is bad?
	Oh God!
	But I like being reminded of, occasionally, of some garden variety utopianism.
	You know, no child is born with hate.
	Hate is taught.
	That's not true.
	That's not true!
	It's so not true!
	Okay, where did hate come from then?
	If we don't have the potential for hatred, where does it come from?
	Where?
	I guess the Sun taught us it.
	Anyway, let's move to the next link.
	Somewhere down the line, what happened was actually, I've just realized where hate came from.
	I know where hate came from.
	It came from Jacob creating the first white people.
	That's what happened.
	Now we tell everyone else the hate.
	Let's look at the picture here.
	It says International Day for Countering Hate Speech, 18th of June.
	It says, hate speech is any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are.
	Now, look at the picture there and tell me if it is anything like the previous picture we were watching.
	It certainly doesn't appear to be.
	For one, this person only has a single eye, so this hate seems to have turned him into a cyclops.
	He's also blue, he's missing a finger, and he's also crying like a little baby.
	And so we have this figure who is blue with one eye and has a hand with what appears to be four fingers.
	And has the emotional maturity of an unstable four-year-old.
	And is in front of a computer or a screen, and we have signs of exclamation marks, question marks, hashtags, and just sad faces.
	And this person is crying.
	Now, I don't know what has happened with exclamation marks, hashtags, and questions.
	Why are they supposed to indicate hate?
	Well, this is me looking over my Twitter mentions on a Saturday night.
	Also, sad faces.
	Everyone's so sad at my takes, that's all it is.
	They say, Harry, why do you hate democracy so much?
	You're making me sad.
	So, what is going on there?
	The UN thinks that hate speech involves exclamation marks, question marks, hashtags, the logical connective end, and sad faces.
	Now, this is nothing like the previous message.
	It has nothing to do with empowerment, with individual empowerment.
	This has to be with an individual being completely unable to cope with a screen and being worn by exclamation marks and question marks.
	This person does not even need to switch off the screen, he can simply click off the tab.
	He also seems to have an extra arm protruding from his stomach.
	The proportions on this man are very strange.
	He's got a lot to be upset about now that I think about it.
	Okay, now if we go on the next link, which is the first video.
	We must find ways to keep interrupting that circle of socialization through education, through knowledge.
	Through having friends from different ethnic, racial, religious communities.
	And what I've learned is that the same tools that are used to spread hate often turn out to be the best tools to counter hate speech.
	So for example, the cell phone.
	It's become a tool that's almost indispensable to many people.
	And it's also become a tool in Social media is still an extremely useful tool of engagement.
	We just need to know how to speak to the issues that people need addressed.
	We must have conversations with our children and tell them not to fear difference and tell them that difference is a really good thing.
	It's the perspectives that each brings to the table, perspectives that you would never hear if you just stayed with people who look and speak like you.
	Do you see here that they put governments up above societies?
	Hackling hate speech is everyone's responsibility.
	First and foremost, it says governments, then societies, then private sector, then individual women and men.
	They see it as their job to utilize the functions of state to socially engineer the populations that they're governing.
	Now, something that is really remarkable about this video is that it is released in the context of UN's, let's say, effort to curtail free speech because it is, in some cases, hate speech.
	Now, what she said is that often the same tools that spread hate speech can spread also the opposite.
	Okay?
	Now, this is complete selective application of what she's saying.
	It's like saying, okay, with power comes responsibility.
	When you have something, a strong, let's say, tool, that strong tool can be used for bad, can be used for good.
	Why does the same argument not count in favor of free speech?
	Because with speech, you can actually recognize, you can listen to people you disagree with, something that maybe you're not doing there.
	You can listen to people you disagree with, and you can basically understand them without necessarily agreeing with them.
	So just because it so in the same manner, why should we curtail speech, free speech, instead of saying, no, let's give more power to free speech, and actually run campaigns that instead of saying that we should, as governments, have a top-down implementation of a plan that we use it for our purposes, why not empower speech?
	And why not have campaigns where, you know, tell people how to have a good conversation, tell people how to recognize each other?
	Why do they not do it?
	Because it's not expedient for them and because that's typically speaking not how it works.
	When a political ideology is held by the people in power they will do whatever they can to quell talk of any other political ideology that might oppose it because that means that they have opposing political power centers that can rise up and potentially unseat them in a democracy as it is supposed to work but that's not how these things actually work.
	So the answer is that basically they do not want to do that because they don't want to empower people in criticizing their agenda.
	Essentially.
	Much easier to stop people talking than actually come up with any answers.
	Right, and I think that there is a sort of manipulation when people try to constantly take the extreme, the most extreme interpretation of what you say if you're in favor of free speech.
	Let's watch the next video.
	The risk factors for genocide or crimes against humanity are higher than they've ever been in our lifetime.
	It's so important that people see what hate speech can do at its most extreme and Adolf Hitler, for example, created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment to completely change the landscape.
	And if you go through what that ministry was charged to do, it was to lift the stereotypes and prejudices that exist in societies and move them into the space where they actually become incitement to violence so that ordinary people it was to lift the stereotypes and prejudices that exist in societies and move them into the space where Oh, it's all so tiresome.
	It's all so tiresome.
	If you say mean words on the internet, you're just like Adolf Hitler.
	Oh, shut up!
	Shut up!
	I've heard it all before!
	I agree with you and your sentiment.
	But there's another irony here.
	Oh, yes?
	She's talking about the Ministry of Propaganda criticizing... She's part of the UN.
	...the efforts, and she is trying, on the other hand, to regulate speech.
	Oh, she is.
	And I suspect she is in favor of governments that try to curtail free speech, and that merits the criticism of maybe establishing something like a monopoly on credibility, I'm just saying.
	But once again, the standard, the principle, is not to be held universally.
	The standard is to be held that speech is good when it's speech that we agree with, and if people decide that speech that we agree with is wrong speech, and try to censor that, then that's Nazism, whereas when we do it, it's actually utopian liberalism, or Okay, so let's just say some problems with his rhetoric.
	Okay, I mean, it's garden variety utopianism.
	want to attribute it to, or progressivism, whatever.
	Okay, so let's just say some problems with this rhetoric.
	Okay, I mean, it's garden variety utopianism.
	We talked about this.
	There is also the problem of, you know, the changing of the meaning of words.
	That, you know, when you...
	When you talk about hate speech and you define hate in a particular way, what you're doing is, first of all, you're not guarding yourself against new interpretations that could happen in the future, but you are pacifying the population by means of habituating them into accepting more and more and more restrictions on liberty.
	And all of that because you want a virtue signal.
	There is nothing admirable about that.
	Now, of course, it's not effective because they are not tackling the real problems that generate negative emotions.
	There's also a double standard here because how many times have you heard people from the UN speak against communism?
	I often don't take much time to listen to what the people of the UN are saying.
	Okay, you haven't heard the UN talk about, you know, the victims of communism, which is supposed to be August the 23rd.
	What do they celebrate?
	August 23rd for them is the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition.
	Wait, so is that just outright replaced the day remembering the victims of communism?
	Yeah, I'm not saying anything about that international day or not.
	I'm just saying that I checked the dates and they have no day where they talk about communism.
	And the victims of communism.
	There is no International Day for the victims of communism.
	Now, it may have eluded me, but I couldn't find it.
	Sorry, I've just noticed as well, the 31st of August is International Day for People of African Descent.
	I need to check something very quickly.
	International Day for People of European Descent.
	I just want to see if this is a thing that exists.
	European Heritage Day from europa.eu?
	International?
	Nope, nope, doesn't exist.
	Thank you, UN.
	Now, according to the UN rhetoric, well, if, let's say, speech leads to the incitement of violence and it should be curtailed, should teaching Marxism be banned?
	Or should, let's say, communist rhetoric be banned?
	Because in communism there is frequently a sort of radicalization of people against, you know, the kind of classes that the communists are saying they drink the blood of everyone else.
	I haven't heard them saying anything of the sort.
	Now, and there is another hypocrisy, a second hypocrisy, is that They reject free speech on the grounds that hate speech can lead to the incitement of violence.
	So let us ban free speech.
	Well, we have a problem here.
	With the same rationale, we should be against the centralization of power.
	The centralization of power can lead into increased chances of, let's say, inciting people to violent behavior.
	So let us reverse the trends of centralization.
	How does this sound?
	So that's a double standard.
	Now, if we check at this link, this is really funny because the 3rd of May's World Press Freedom Day for the United Nations.
	If we look down, it says, the proliferation of independent media in many countries and the rise of digital technologies have enabled free flow of information.
	However, media freedom, safety of journalists and freedom of expression are increasingly under attack, which impacts the fulfillment of other human rights.
	So the UN is going to help us get our monetization back on YouTube.
	Wonderful.
	I'm so glad to hear about this.
	Thank you, UN.
	Wait.
	It says, though, at the end of the day that there are some issues.
	Now, I don't know how they square them, but Just to show you the kind of consistency of the UN.
	Now, let's move forward.
	Let's speed up and let's show the... I'll just read some tweets from the UN Secretary General.
	Antonio Guterres says social media has equipped hate mongers with a global bullhorn for bile.
	This week, I launched a proposal to help countries and digital platforms make the digital space safer and more inclusive, while defending the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
	You can have one of those, but not the other.
	If we could go next link, hate fuels humanity's worst impulses.
	And they have this as if it's a magnificent quote.
	Next link.
	Proliferation of hate and lies in the digital space is causing grave global harm.
	This clear and present global threat demands clear and coordinated global action.
	We don't have a moment to lose.
	Next link.
	Hate speech is often aimed at vulnerable groups, reinforcing discrimination, stigma, and marginalization.
	Next link, please.
	We see example of intolerance in all societies and among all faiths today.
	It is the duty of religious leaders to prevent instrumentalization of hatred amidst their followers.
	Together, let's forge an alliance of peace rooted in human rights and the values of human fraternity.
	So do you see this?
	Well it's entertaining to me because this is how every single person within the UN and within the global political elite will view it and it's because of this that they can allow themselves the hypocrisies that you have pointed out here.
	The point of the matter is that it's totalitarianism and authoritarianism when the state is being used and large global organizations are being used to push right-wing thoughts and right-wing objectives.
	It's perfectly fine and normal and it's just liberal democracy in action when we do use the same things to push our agenda.
	Well, I would just disagree on both terms.
	I'm not willing to give them because I think they're neither democratic nor liberal.
	I don't think it matters.
	I think it doesn't matter if you give it to them, they've taken it already.
	No, I don't think.
	Well, if we talk about, you know, People's Republic of North Korea, for instance.
	I mean, that's just funny.
	I'm not going to take North Korea seriously.
	Let's just go on the next video, just small, to show someone who is a bit more honest where all this is going, and we can end the segment with this.
	When you think about it, All law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom.
	That's exactly what we're doing here, is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.
	You will see throughout our constitution, yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.
	Everything needs to be balanced.
	And if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.
	By the way, this is the bill that David Thunder is talking about on our interview.
	That is just the face of modern politics, isn't it?
	The shrieking harpy of feminine concern for the well-being of people that she's never heard of, really, and never met in all likelihood.
	And this is really bad, because let's end with this, that it disempowers citizens and communities, and it simultaneously empowers the state.
	Because if we are to live in dynamic societies, there are many conceptions of the common good, and we need free speech in order to be able to talk to each other.
	Now, Basically, what she is saying is that she thinks that the freedom of the individual in thinking, talking, all of that doesn't matter for the common good.
	It's not an integral part.
	And I think that this is very worrying.
	I have one simple goal in life, one small desire, one fleeting thing that I need, which is for the government of the UK to abolish the Equalities Act.
	And I will explain why in but a moment.
	So there's been a lot of talk over the past who knows how long at this point I've honestly lost track of a lot of it of all of the issues going on with trans ideology and the battle between trans activists and TERFs that being trans exclusionary radical feminists in the colloquial term and what they want this is a kind of battle that has now taken its way to parliament and it seems that the TERFs are winning as we have covered a few times but the way that they are winning is rather concerning to me.
	The way that they are likely to secure and cement their gains will be, for anybody who is a fan of civil liberties and freedom in the English sense, it will be detrimental to all of that.
	Moving forwards and on that basis I thought it would be time to refer everybody to an older article that I've referred to a few times which is very very interesting because it gets to the heart of a lot of what we talk about and the cause, the real root causes, for a lot of what goes on in the world today especially in the West which is this article from good old Hugo who's not been here for a long time at this point
	But it is still always a relevant one to point people to, which is why you are a criminal, which is talking about the absolute labyrinth, the maze of legislation and laws that exist in the UK and most Western European countries, including the USA, that mean that there is nothing that you can really do in any circumstance, in any walk of life, that means you're not breaking some obscure law that you have never heard of, because that's how they get you.
	And if you're wondering why all of these companies these days go woke, It's not necessarily because at first they wanted to, or even that they believed in a lot of the ideology that was put forward.
	It was mainly because they wanted to avoid litigation for legislation that's been passed that they might not be sticking to.
	They might be breaking the law entirely by accident, just trying to run their business by, say, having a code of dress.
	Which is absolutely ridiculous, which is what I'm going to be talking about here.
	Now, I was made aware of this by this particular stream, Anti-Woke in a Post-Woke World.
	It was very interesting and I would recommend you go and listen to that.
	It's Scrump and Evelyn.
	And they were talking about if woke is put away, as some people suggest that it is, what happens to the anti-woke coalition?
	You mean that it will?
	No, if it is.
	This is a theory that is being put forward by some, that the elites, because they can recognize what an optical failure woke is, that they are going to try and sideline it and put it away.
	So this wouldn't necessarily get rid of all the problems that it's caused, but it would turn it into a PR victory, and certainly the TERFs would be at the forefront of that, and some conservative commentators as well.
	The problems wouldn't go away, they would just be taken out of the headlines.
	essentially, is the theory that's being put forward there.
	And this could be one way that it's going about because in that stream they were talking about the Equalities Act and I thought, oh, I'll look into this a little bit more.
	So when we talk about the battle between trans and TERFs, as I've mentioned, it's going to Parliament and this article is talking about it.
	So, what would changing the Equality Act mean for trans people and single-sex spaces?
	Kemi Badenoch is considering amending the Act to define people's sex as biological sex in England, Scotland and Wales.
	A significant change to the 2010 Equality Act is being pursued by the government which would redefine sex to refer specifically to a person's sex at birth.
	That would be designed to make it legal for those who are transgender to be banned from single sex spaces and events.
	Currently trans people can have their identity formally recognized by applying for a gender recognition certificate.
	Badenock wants to make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition and she wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission seeking its advice.
	There was a recent petition as well which was signed by 107,000 people and called for the Act to make clear sex related to biological sex and not someone's gender.
	Now there was also a counter petition that got, I think, 127,000 signatures calling for the Equalities Act to be strengthened to allow for people Sorry, what was it about?
	Was it about to allow people to self-identify?
	Oh, what, the secondary petition?
	to biological sex as well, but both of those were packaged into one for this debate that went on in Parliament.
	Updating the current law, which was passed by Gordon Brown's government, would probably require fresh primary legislation.
	Sorry, what was it about?
	Was it about to allow people to self-identify?
	Oh, what, the secondary petition?
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean...
	Yeah, so it's essentially saying either keep the law as it is, which allows that anyway, update it to make it stronger in favour of trans people.
	Okay.
	And in this Pink News article they describe some of what was going on, so the politicians debated the two different petitions, as I've mentioned before, and this is where I get very suspicious because, as we know, From everything that went on during the Covid lockdowns and the petitions that were signed and then immediately thrown in the bin by Parliament, the government do not debate these things unless it's absolutely in their best interests to do so.
	So when it was time for Covid lockdowns and Covid vaccines and all of the other things that people were signing petitions against, The government looked at those, even if they got over 100,000 signatures.
	For those of you not in the UK, we have a system whereby there is a government website where you can sign petitions.
	If it gets over 10,000, the government has to provide a written response to the petition.
	If it gets over 100,000, they are forced to actually debate it in Parliament.
	A lot of these got over 100,000 signatures.
	But they were never debated.
	No, they were debated for less than five minutes, where all of the MPs stood up and said, I disagree with what this petition is asking for us to do.
	Goodbye.
	And it was just updated like that on the website.
	And then everybody just got told that your opinion is thrown in the bin.
	Sorry, that's ridiculous.
	It's like, okay, we have all these signatures.
	Why?
	Because we want you to just shout one word.
	Which is no.
	Yeah.
	Don't always go it's a I or an A. It's always the A's have it.
	There you go.
	That's always what it ends up being.
	So the very fact that this got such a serious look in at Parliament in the first place suggests to me that this is something that works in the favour of the politicians and we always know that the politicians never have our best interests in mind now, do they?
	So if I carry on through this... Is that for real?
	Politicians do occasionally lie, and they may not always have the people's interests in mind.
	In fact, oftentimes they're just looking out for themselves.
	Now, this might be a hell of a red pill for you to swallow.
	I know you didn't think that you'd be joining the Lotus Eaters, that kind of insider info, but... I must say that this is really deep inside.
	I'm sorry to break your illusions.
	I broke the spell.
	You're out of the Matrix now, bro.
	You're in the real world.
	We did this on Symposium 17, where we talked about Aristotle and the good and bad constitutions, by the way.
	Check it out.
	The way our constitution is functioning at the moment is...
	Non-functional, I think I would describe it as.
	Either way, I'll carry on with this.
	So in April, the chair of the UK Equalities Watchdog, Baroness Kishwa Faulkner, wrote to Women and Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch, and provided advice on altering the Equality Act.
	She said that while there was no straightforward balance in the matter, changing the definition of sex to biological sex would bring greater legal clarity and thus merits further consideration.
	This clarity, she stated, would be particularly seen in eight areas including the existence of single-sex spaces such as freedom of association for lesbians and gay men, but not straight men.
	Not straight men.
	They don't have any freedom of association.
	We don't get to have men's clubs or boys' clubs or anything like that.
	Because freedom of association may lead to increased chances of mean words being said to people.
	Mean words, yeah.
	So, I mean, well, let's lock them.
	Let's destroy civil liberties!
	So that people don't get mean words thrown at them.
	Now, in a speech by Miriam Cates, the MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, she made reference to drag queen events for children, making, according to Pink News here, and I'm just reporting this, I don't have an opinion of this myself, YouTube, a barring claims that trans rights results in ordinary toddlers being used to satisfy the sexual fetish of adult men dressed as eroticized women.
	That's about as deep as the rhetoric goes in this.
	I did try I tried to watch the actual debate because the whole thing is up on YouTube, but it's four hours long and it's just people saying the most banal stuff that you've heard over and over and over again.
	Nothing is really discussed, nothing is really concluded.
	By the end they just go, do you know what they do at the end of these debates?
	They do the aye and the nays.
	Do you know what the aye and the nays were for this time?
	No.
	Just to confirm that yes, we have discussed this.
	Can we all agree that we've discussed this?
	Aye!
	Congratulations!
	We'll move on to it and talk about it again some other time.
	Democracy in action, people!
	It's really funny that now one of the major questions that people ask, you know, politicians and, you know, mayors who run for office is like, you know, what is a woman?
	And I have a friend, Britt, I know you're watching, who sent questions to various mayors where she is living, various candidates, and she said, Please, can you just tell me what is a woman?
	And I will consider voting for you if you just give me a straight answer on this.
	And almost no one gave her a response.
	Just one person says, you know... The word that YouTube don't want us to say it.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yep.
	We would confirm our own opinions, but we have no opinions for the sake of pleasing Neil Mohan, the great Raj of YouTube, so I shall carry on with this.
	Helen Joyce, who's written a book on this called Trends, as well, was commenting on it, talking about how some people were complaining about this, and she said, oh, the debate was about the meaning of sex and equality, yet everyone has a sex, whether they identify as trans or not, it's a matter that affects 100% of people, most specifically women and gay people, and lots of them spoke.
	It was democracy in action.
	Now, personally, I don't think that the best way to strengthen democracy, if that is even a particularly desirable goal at this point, is to strengthen the Equalities Act.
	Because once again, the Equalities Act is not a particularly good piece of legislation.
	You know that it's a terrible piece of legislation because it was passed under New Labour.
	In fact, Any amount of any legislation whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned, that has been passed in the 21st century by the UK government is probably worthy of being repealed, because our government have done nothing good for the past 23 years, and let's look into why that is.
	So the Equalities Act 2010 was the one that we're mainly focusing on, but it did There was an act that preceded this called the Equality Act 2006 and I'll explain what this was.
	So it's a precursor to the 2010 Equality Act which combines all of the equality enactments within Great Britain and provides comparable protections across all equality strands.
	Those explicitly mentioned by the Equality Act 2006 include age, disability, sex proposed, commenced or completed gender reassignment, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation.
	The changes it made were creating The Equality and Human Rights Commission, from here on referred to as the EHRC, which merged the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Disability Rights Commission.
	It also outlawed the discrimination on goods and services on the grounds of religious belief, subject to certain exemptions, which basically means that if you run a business, And you don't want to serve to a particular type of customer.
	Horrible as that may be, exclusionary, discriminatory as that may be, that you're not allowed to do that anymore by law.
	That's something that I disagree with.
	Allowing the government to introduce regulations outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in goods and services.
	Once again, that's the same thing.
	Creating a public duty to equality, to promote equality on the ground of gender.
	So that would be, say, getting quotas in businesses to force them to have a certain amount of parity with men and women, and the way that they pay men and women, you know, gender pay gap, all of that good stuff that has been debunked many, many times before.
	If we go to the next one...
	This is not your topic, but the laws and all this, it's just boring, isn't it?
	Well, it's difficult to go through, but one of the reasons that I think that it's boring is because it makes it more difficult to counter any of it, because nobody wants to go through... That wasn't a thing some decades ago.
	Yeah, but nobody wants to go through pages and pages and pages of obscure legislation, which is horribly dull to go through, but has a very meaningful impact on your life and all of the behavior of the people around you.
	Because whether you know it or not, these laws matter.
	They have an impact.
	You can be held liable under them if you are found to be acting in contradiction to them.
	If you're found to break these laws, whether you know it or not, you are liable for that.
	And that's one of the reasons that a lot of businesses have adopted the woke agenda as I see it.
	What I meant, because it's good to be clear about it, I didn't say that people shouldn't read about the law, okay?
	But I said that, you know, all these problems, they're creating problems out of nowhere in order to make our lives more difficult.
	Well, if you believe in the conception of the managerial state, it's essentially to make sure that they always have jobs to give other managers.
	If they can create new bits of legislation that create new functions within society that requires new departments, then you can fill those departments with people that you are friends with who believe the same things that you do.
	And who support you politically.
	Who supports you politically?
	Well, I mean, you get votes either way, and then whatever you said that you would do when you get the votes for it, you just don't do it.
	Yeah, but you can enlarge the state by, you know, giving jobs to people that would not necessarily need it, and you tax people more in order to fund these departments.
	And also you have major bureaucracies with people who they just want to justify their salary.
	And, you know, if you give a bureaucrat some, you know, a mission, he or she will find trouble.
	They will create trouble.
	So if we have, let's say, bureaucracies of people who are supposed to find, you know, hate or whatever, they'll turn everyone into A criminal, just like the article Hugo wrote.
	Yes, and now we get on to the Equality Act 2010, which, as I mentioned, consolidates a lot of the legislation that came before it, including the Equal Pay Act of 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 76, Disability Discrimination Act 95, and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.
	The Act has broadly the same goals as the four major EU Equal Treatment Directives, whose provisions it mirrors and implements.
	However, the Act also offers protection beyond the EU Directives, protecting against discrimination based on a person's nationality and citizenship, and also extending individuals' rights in areas of life beyond the workplace, in religion or belief, disability, blah blah blah, the protected characteristics.
	Now let's go on to the actual document itself.
	You're probably already aware of this but they've got the protected characteristics in here which include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation and all of this will be administered by the EHRC and they're the ones who get to determine subjectively because when it's just written down on the page well you can say well Religion or belief, well that includes Christianity.
	Race, that will include ethnicity of British people, white people, etc.
	But it never actually gets applied that way, does it?
	Because the people in the EHRC have their own beliefs on how these bits of legislation should be applied.
	There is something that flies frequently under the radar.
	And because when we see someone who puts forward a piece of legislation that says, you know, anti-discrimination laws that are supposed to penalize discrimination, of course, first thing we should be asking is what constitutes discrimination?
	And the problem is, and this is what flies under the radar, is that there is no coherent There is no way that any piece of action will not count as discrimination against one group.
	Because when you have completely incompatible groups who have views about what constitutes peaceful coexistence that are incompatible, agreeing with one or at least tolerate one, It can be seen as a form of discrimination to another group as well.
	And that's why you end up with companies adopting these gigantic HR departments, they adopt these gigantic compliance departments, purely because of the fact that they need a gigantic legal apparatus at hand at all times to make sure that they're never breaking these laws.
	And nobody knows how to not break these laws, so they end up going the most ridiculous routes possible.
	Exactly, and it functions like a presumption of guilt.
	You are guilty from the first place, and let us just see if we're going to be lenient with you or not.
	Yes, I mean, for instance, on that, first of all, there is a very disconcerting section that's the very first one, which says that the government has a public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities, which has never been implemented formally.
	When the Tory government coalition with the Liberal Democrats came in in 2010, and they put through this after Gordon Brown had signed it through, they didn't actually implement that one.
	But it is lying in dormant for to be put into use at any point, say, if Labour come back in.
	I'm surprised that the Tories haven't done that themselves.
	They talk about direct discrimination being outlawed by it, indirect discrimination by it, which means that if you discriminate against somebody because you think that they are gay, but it turns out that they are not gay, you're still held liable for that.
	They also have legislation in here against harassment, which includes the provision of Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the person who is alleging harassment.
	Now, that's incredibly subjective, and we'll see as we go on how subjective that can be.
	As mentioned, this is all Overseen by the EHRC, so let's look at them very quickly as well.
	So they derived their power from the Equality Act 2006, which resulted from the government white paper Fairness for All, a new commission for equality and human rights, which is one of the most leftist white paper titles I've ever heard.
	Section 3 states the EHRC has a general duty to work towards the development of a society where Equal rights are rooted.
	Section 30 of the Equality Act 2006 also allows the EHRC to bring judicial review proceedings under the HRA against the public authorities.
	This is a stronger tool than usual because the EHRC is not subject to the normal requirement of being a victim of a human rights violation.
	So what this means is the EHRC can just go out like a shark in the water looking for things to bring judicial review to.
	They can take you to court, over anything and there is no requirement for a victim to have stepped forward and brought the case to the EHRC.
	First of all, once again, this just brings another reason for why companies need these massive compliance parts of their organizations and why they stick to all of the progressive agenda, the intersectional agenda, whatever you want to call it, mainly because they're trying to head off at the pass, have it being brought to court by these guys.
	Now let's look at some of the cases that they've got in here.
	Now the first one is going to be contentious because it's an organization that I doubt many of you are going to be particularly fond of.
	But despite that, I don't think it means that they shouldn't have the right to not be sued for promoting their own organization's goals and aims.
	Now that's the BNP, the British National Party, basically defunct these days.
	In fact, I think they are gone.
	At this point, now this was following the election of two MEPs for the British National Party in the 2009 European elections.
	A potential issue of public funding was raised by the Commission as the BNP constitution states that recruitment is only open to members who are indigenous caucasian and defined ethnic groups emanating from that race.
	The commission's legal director John Wadham said that the legal advice we've received indicates that the british national party's constitution and membership criteria employment practices and provision of services to constituent constituents and the public may breach discrimination laws which all political parties are legally obliged to uphold this relates to the race relations act 1976 which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organization
	Now, this is very interesting because under the Race Relations Act 1976 it may have been illegal, technically, for the BNP to do this, but there wasn't an official government organisation who would be able to just bring this to court without any victims stepping forward, because previously, I assume, The BNP had been able to get away with this because nobody of non-English ethnicity had tried to apply to join them.
	So then the EHRC is able to bring this to court.
	The EHRC asked the BNP to provide written undertakings that there will not be discrimination in its recruitment procedures.
	The party responded to the letter by stating that it intends to clarify the word white on its website.
	However, because the EHRC believed the BNP would continue to discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds the commission announced they had issued county court proceedings against it of which they lost.
	Now that's very interesting because what they did there is the organization said don't worry we'll fix this and the AHRC just said well we don't believe you we're taking you to court anyway Brilliant!
	That's how these organizations can function.
	Now no matter what you think of the BNP, whether you support them or you don't, whether you think that their ability to discriminate about membership is right or not, I do think that they should have the right to be able to determine the kinds of members that they take on.
	And this has a big slippery slope effect.
	The second that you say an organization can't do this, all of a sudden you turn around and say the Boy Scouts only being able to admit boys in, well that's discrimination as well.
	So therefore you're going to have to have the Boy Scouts open up.
	It doesn't matter that without the legislation, for instance if we're talking about this trans versus TERFs issue, if you repealed this legislation, if you abolished the Equalities Act, all of a sudden these women's only organizations would not have to worry because they would be able to have their own organizations where they can just discriminate as to who can enter.
	They can say no men, no trans women, only biological women.
	And that wouldn't be against the law and they wouldn't have to worry about it, but that means that they can't also then turn around and say no men's-only organizations, which is where the problem comes in and why they want this kind of thing.
	And there were some other ones I could bring forward, but let's just move on to the next link.
	So this is a PDF that I found through the EHRC website where they talk about the actual definitions and they talk about how this applies to small businesses.
	So they give an example of the sorts of things that small businesses need to take care of because this will count as discrimination, okay?
	You ready for this example?
	Do you want to torture me?
	Are you in pain listening to all of this?
	Does this upset your liberal sensibilities?
	Yeah.
	I'm really sorry about all of this.
	But once again, this is important.
	This is very important for everybody to know.
	So the example given is that a hair salon owner has a policy of not employing stylists who cover their hair, believing it is important for them to exhibit their flamboyant haircuts.
	Does this sound like discrimination to you?
	It's discrimination in terms of hair that everybody does.
	Wrong!
	It's racist, because it is clear that this policy puts Muslim and Sikh women at a particular disadvantage, as well as Sikh men who cover their hair.
	This may be indirect discrimination.
	No, because it doesn't say that you have to show your hair.
	Well it just says that you're not allowed to have a hook covering on your head.
	Because what that means is that if you hire a Muslim or Sikh person then you're going to be discriminating against them because it's going to be going against their religion.
	The other example is a food manufacturer has a rule that birds are forbidden for people working on the factory floor.
	Does this sound discriminatory to you?
	Hair salon owner?
	No, food manufacturer has a rule that beards are forbidden for people working on the factory floor.
	This is a very simple yes or no answer.
	You know the answer.
	You know how the EHRC are going to fall on this.
	You don't want people to...
	If people have beards and they're in a kitchen, there are increased chances that hair are going to somehow find their way on the plate.
	Close, but I'm sorry, you've just been sued for £200,000 for breaching the Equalities Act, because unless it can be objectively justified, this rule may be indirect religion or belief discrimination against Sikhs and Muslims.
	There you go.
	That's why these organizations, they all have to jump through hoops, day in, day out, to be able to actually fulfill the purpose of this legislation and meet these stupid requirements.
	And the worst thing about it might be that it makes office banter literally illegal.
	Here's some of the examples, just to end this off, just so that everybody can understand that the TERFs, you may agree with what they're trying to do in securing single-sex spaces for women, the Equalities Act, is absolutely not the way to go about it because all of these examples I'm going to put forward now are as a direct result of the Equality Act.
	So, a woman in Scotland awarded £28,000 after she said that her boss humiliated her in front of colleagues and customers by calling her a dinosaur because she was going through the menopause.
	Mean, perhaps, you can say that was uncalled for.
	Not £28,000 worth of uncalled for.
	Other examples included a tribunal ruling that found the phrase cheeky monkey, broadly considered to be innocent banter, crossed the line into racial harassment when it was directed at an employee of Indian origin during a round of golf that had been arranged by his bosses.
	You've had golf paid for, you're having a lovely day out, Someone says cheeky monkey as a little jab that has no racial connotations whatsoever, and you decide, hold up, I can make some good money from this!
	Hello, government!
	Likewise, a male employee was found to have suffered harassment at the hands of colleagues when they described him as gay after he told them that he had no interest in football.
	I'm sorry, why do you need to take this to court?
	The researchers also cited the case of a 69-year-old plumber who was labeled half-dead Dave, which I'm sorry, it's just a... it's a cheeky name.
	It's a cheeky nickname.
	He was a cheeky monkey and he took him to court over it and won 25 grand for age-related discrimination, so having fun at work is illegal.
	Right, Harry, do you think we're being brainwashed?
	I think they're attempting to brainwash us constantly.
	weren't woke, didn't push all of the agenda, have to because of the Equalities Act.
	So, if the TERFs get their way, great, they get their same-sex bases, but they've just strengthened a piece of legislation that makes it so that England is objectively a worse place to function.
	Right.
	Harry, do you think we're being brainwashed?
	I think they're attempting to brainwash us constantly.
	I think we're brainwashed from the moment we're born.
	Yeah, we are.
	And I want to talk a bit about education because it seems to me that, you know, things have changed a lot.
	And back in the day when astronomy wasn't sexist.
	I remember, I do remember teachers who were trying to tell us, you know, what they thought is right, but I do not remember any sustained attempt to emotionally blackmail students into thinking that unless you agree with what we are saying, you are basically sort of leading people to their demise, to put it somehow diplomatically, so we don't get any issues.
	Well, when I was in school, primary school, I remember it being rather neutral, but at the same time I was just a child, so I wasn't switched on to these things.
	So perhaps it was a lot less neutral than I remember it being.
	I couldn't say, really.
	Okay, so you are also born in 1996?
	Yes, you got it right, correct.
	Okay, so I'm a bit older.
	You're an old man.
	Yeah, old timer.
	That's right.
	I can hear his bones creaking.
	I remember that there wasn't this emotional blackmailer and manipulator telling students that if you don't agree with us, you are basically leading some people to commit suicide or things like that.
	Okay, so it seems to me that, you know, the days of critical education are gone in the West.
	Generally speaking, I'm an optimist.
	I do think that things can turn into the better, but for now they're not good.
	And it seems to me that emotional manipulation by intersectionalist teachers is something that few people talk about.
	And emotional manipulation frequently leads to brainwashing and brainwashing affects our autonomy.
	Now, I have an excellent idea how you can increase your autonomy.
	You can visit a website and for five pounds a month, you can get access to all our premium content and watch this wonderful symposium number 23 I had with Harry, where we talked about personal autonomy.
	It was an interesting discussion.
	I really enjoyed it.
	I really enjoyed it as well, and I had the impression that you were a bit more… Cynical?
	No, negatively predisposed in the beginning, but we sort of had a good I think we were able to have a good discussion when we came to a loss of agreement.
	Okay, diplomatic Harry in action.
	Now, so what I want to say is that I've been both a student and a teacher, and there are grievances on both sides.
	I don't think there are reasons to be optimistic about these two sides ever reconciling via, let's say, problems with each other, but there are some things that I won't say that both sides get horribly wrong.
	And they're the same thing.
	Both sides think they're infallible.
	All right.
	So you regularly have, let's say, students who constantly think they know better.
	You can think of, for instance, SJW students.
	Maybe, you know, you have an SJW teen who has not, for instance, let's say, walked the earth sufficiently.
	And they speak as if, you know, they know everything and everyone else is a raving idiot, mad, bad or sad.
	And if only they led the communist revolution, a classless society would be a matter of time.
	Some of my university lecturers would probably accuse me of being the student who knew better, but that's literally because I already knew everything they were teaching me from simple Google searches.
	I'm sure it doesn't apply to your case.
	I was actually in the know, is the thing.
	But the other problem now is that we have intersectionalist teachers who think they know everything.
	And they are, in a sense, emotionally blackmailing students.
	Now, let's talk about an incident in Massachusetts, and then we're going to talk about incidents in other places, where schoolchildren were asked to wear rainbow t-shirts.
	Now, why would you do this?
	Why would you do this?
	Because you want to apply social pressure to the students?
	Let's see what happened.
	These displays of intolerance and homophobia are unacceptable.
	This type of intolerant rhetoric starts in the home.
	Parents angry at town hall over intolerance at Marshall Simons Middle School.
	Kids were asked to wear rainbow clothes in honor of Pride Spirit Day.
	But some organized a counter-protest wearing red, white, and blue or black.
	The principal sharing a statement to families that Pride posters were ripped down.
	Stickers ripped up, some students chanted USA are my pronouns, and students showing pride were intimidated.
	It was an unruly disruption, in fact, that was organized ahead of time.
	While some parents were upset, others say it was overblown.
	Some of the kids threw the stickers on the ground.
	But, you know, I can only speak for my daughter.
	She just, she didn't want to wear that to school.
	It's not that she wanted to hurt anybody's feelings.
	She says her daughter felt coerced to participate in the Pride event and was offended by some of the messages, like this quote from Tennessee Williams.
	Human heart cannot be straight.
	It is curves and lines.
	And my daughter just kind of said, you know, mom, that's that's offensive to to me, who I am straight.
	See, the funny thing for me is I remember growing up in England, everywhere has to wear, if you're in school, you have to wear a school uniform.
	That's just the thing.
	Americans, notoriously, I used to be very jealous of them for it.
	They don't, I think, in many schools have to wear school uniforms.
	So you've essentially told them they have to wear a school uniform and then expected teenagers not to rebel against that immediately?
	Are you stupid?
	They're getting high with their own supply, I would say.
	Huffing their own farts is what they're doing.
	Now, another issue to talk about has to do with, you know, the celebration and all these bits.
	How can you celebrate something without voluntarily celebrating it?
	The whole rhetoric seems to me to fall down when we ask this question.
	You can only celebrate something if you voluntarily do it.
	Otherwise, you're just waving a flag.
	And there are images of various regimes, let's say, where people wave flags.
	They don't necessarily seem happy.
	They act happy.
	They seem as if they're celebrating.
	What do you mean?
	Kim Jong-un said they were happy.
	That means they're happy.
	Okay, then I raise my case.
	Now, let's watch this tweet by Nick Buckley.
	He will be with us, I believe, next week.
	Oh, excellent.
	He says, do you know what is going on in your child's school?
	I thought this madness was mainly in USA schools, but it is here in the UK and is just as disturbing.
	As a parent, only you have the power to stop this indoctrination in your child's school.
	Now, it's not just in the US.
	It's also in the UK and we had an incident in Rye College.
	Have you heard of it?
	No.
	So what you're going to listen to is, it's a sort of longish video, but it's really important to listen exactly to what is being said, because you listen to, you can listen to the way in which this teacher is talking to students about this issue.
	And it's really remarkable.
	Now let's, let's watch it.
	You were questioning their identity.
	I wasn't questioning.
	I was just saying about the gender.
	I didn't say anything about them.
	But where did you get this idea from that there's only two genders?
	I should be saying my opinion.
	That is my opinion.
	If I respect their opinion, can't they respect my opinion?
	It is not an opinion.
	Yes it is.
	It's not an opinion you can have.
	Those two people think there's only two genders.
	There's only a boy and a girl.
	There's no other private part.
	There's only two.
	Gender is not linked to the past that you were born with.
	Gender is about how you identify.
	Which is what I said right from the very beginning of the lesson.
	I just don't agree with that.
	So why should I have to listen to it?
	Biological sex, there is actually three biological sex.
	Because she can be born into sex.
	She can be born with male and female body parts or hormones.
	Did you know that?
	There's three.
	I'm talking about biological sex.
	In terms of gender, there are lots of genders.
	There is transgender.
	There is agender, people that don't believe they have a gender at all.
	Yeah, but you can't have that.
	You can't have that.
	It's not a law.
	Yeah, it's not a law, but it's our opinion.
	We just don't agree with it.
	If you have a vagina, you're a girl and you have a penis, you're a boy.
	But cisgender is not necessarily the way to be.
	You are talking about the fact that cisgender is the norm.
	That you identify with the gender of the sexual order that you're born with or you're with.
	That's basically what you're saying.
	Which is really despicable.
	How?
	When it's literally true?
	If I called my mum right now, my mum would be on my side.
	If I called my mum, she'd be sad.
	Well that's very sad as well then.
	How is it?
	Loads of people agree with that.
	There's only a small majority of people who actually think that.
	And why do you think we have so many problems in the world with homophobia?
	Yeah, but that's not her gender.
	I'm fine with lesbians and gay people.
	I've got nothing against them.
	But gender is... there is a link between it in your show.
	There is a link.
	No, they can't.
	They can't.
	Unless you get a penis attached.
	No, I'm not!
	You're confusing sex and gender.
	No, I'm not though, because if you have a vagina, you're a girl.
	If you have a penis, you're a woman.
	You can't have a vagina and be a girl.
	Unless you get separate.
	Even then, because you've got those genes.
	Identity.
	How you identify.
	But it's not an opinion.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	And if you don't like it, you need to go to a different school.
	I'm reporting you to Miss Willis.
	You need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion.
	Because I'm not having that expressed in my lesson.
	What I'm teaching you about, you can be who you want to be.
	How you identify is up to you.
	Maybe because they're polite and maybe they're sensitive.
	I haven't said anything in all of the lessons I've been in.
	It's just because they turned around and started saying something.
	So I said, how can you identify as a cat when you're a girl?
	Well, they're now writing a statement.
	I would imagine that you'll be asked to write a statement as well.
	We will.
	Yeah, we will.
	Well, that bit's not going on YouTube.
	No.
	That was interesting.
	That was very entertaining to listen to because that teacher just sounded hysterical, didn't she?
	It's so fun because it's fun to see, you know, once in a while, students knowing much more than the teachers.
	And I... I've been in that situation many times.
	Same.
	When I was a student.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	Obviously.
	Yeah, but it's good to see some backlash against, you know, idiocy.
	And I have some quotes here from it.
	It says, you know, this teacher says, gender is about how you identify.
	And then when, you know, she gets some traction and pushback, she says, why do you think there's so many problems in the world with homophobia?
	I think that these two are separate issues, but there should be... Maybe you should educate yourself.
	Yeah, maybe.
	And also I like the, you know, if you don't like it, you know, I teach you can be who you want to be.
	Wow.
	What a brave and stunning message.
	Yep.
	Also, other issues with, you know, if you don't like it, you can leave.
	That's a nice way of... That's how you're supposed to address your students who are just expressing their opinion, not even in a... You know, I've been in classes before.
	I'm young enough to remember.
	I'm not old.
	I'm not old like you.
	I'm young enough to remember back when I was in secondary school and you'd have the rowdy students who wouldn't want to learn, who would be there to disrupt everything, who would make it a pain for everybody else to learn.
	That wasn't that.
	Of course, but that was the rare occasion where you have some illumination and it's the right thing.
	Yes, it was pleasant as well to hear those girls say, well everybody else is thinking this exact same thing, they just don't say it.
	Because that's absolutely true.
	Right, now let's click on the Daily Mail article.
	And here we are.
	And here we are, and we are talking about a sort of new sex guide.
	It says, 12-year-olds are being taught about anal sex in school while 9-year-olds are told to masturbate for homework.
	The shocking lesson plans used by teachers in UK classrooms.
	And it says, school children are being taught about anal sex and orgasms before they have reached puberty and set masturbation as homework.
	Secretive lesson plans reveal.
	Many teachers are indoctrinating children with scientifically false claims about biological sex, presenting gender as fluid and furthering a narrative that people can be born in the wrong body.
	It comes as the NHS is facing a mass legal action from a thousand families who claim their children were rushed into taking life-changing puberty blockers by the Tavistock Center.
	MailOnline has found graphic teaching material, including a sex manual for pre-teens being taught to children in classes around the UK.
	Now, we won't show it because Harry reprimanded me about...
	It's disgusting imagery and you don't want to see it.
	You can imagine.
	Let's just describe it is an inappropriately aged person.
	It was some figures.
	It was some drawings of inappropriately aged people performing inappropriate acts.
	It had been censored, but you can get the picture from just that.
	Yeah.
	I definitely don't have anything else to say on this because Raj Mohan certainly would not be happy with my thoughts on this turn of events right here.
	Okay.
	It was blurred on Daily Mail, but not on the... I think it wasn't blurred on the guide.
	No, of course not.
	Now, let's move on... Imagine the sorts of imagery that we've seen from the book Gender Queer previously when covering this sort of stuff in America.
	Right.
	So, let's move on with this tweet by Jordan Peterson.
	It says, The Modern University.
	This is what happens when 10th rate ideas are celebrated.
	Let's move with a craze.
	Let's click on this article.
	Next link is From the College Fix, adjunct who fails students for using term biological women confirmed story plays the victim.
	Now, how many times have I violated the rules now?
	Well, just in this segment, countless times.
	Okay.
	Countless times.
	Should I try to beat my record or something?
	I'll go for it if you want.
	Okay.
	Remember the University of Cincinnati student who was given a zero for using the term biological women on a paper about trans athletes competing in women's sports?
	Though Olivia Kroljik never named her professor, this past week the Cincinnati Enquirer did and scored an interview with her in the process.
	Melanie Rose Nipper, an adjunct in the University of Cincinnati's Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies Department, confirmed Kroljic's sequence of events but added, her review of the paper idea and Kroljic's language was a routine element of her duties as a professor.
	In other words, when a student uses an outdated terminology, Nieper said, she feels it is necessary to correct those mistakes.
	Not a zero for the course, Nieper said, a zero for an assignment.
	By using the terminology.
	It doesn't ban you just from YouTube, it bans you also from, you know... It is ridiculous.
	It reminds me of what Connor has told us before about his English assignment in university where one of his lecturers said that I'm not going to mark you on this because it undermines my entire thesis.
	Yeah.
	And if, for instance, you are on a university and you write biological women and you have people like that correcting your, let's say, marking your exams or essays, you're going to get a round zero because you're using outdated terminology.
	Now, it's good if we see people rebel against this because this is nonsense.
	This is pure nonsense.
	And let's move to Canada, because, you know, the backlash of students against all these movements is now on both sides of the Atlantic.
	We have here, we can play this without sound, but from Ian Miles Chong, Zoomers are rejecting wokeness.
	Zoomers are committing hate crimes, I assume, in this video.
	Yeah.
	So, I want to say something about, you know, progress and pushing an agenda forward.
	When you want the whole society to, let's say, embrace an agenda and you want people to recognize others, you cannot force it upon them and you cannot expect change to happen quickly.
	If any change is going to happen in society is going to be a bottom-up change.
	A bottom-up change can only happen with a non-violent push of an agenda on the other side.
	If you want to talk to people and make them listen to you or make them recognize you as people with grievances or whatever, you need to actually approach them in a way that says that you're not Necessarily bad people now all this woke agenda approaches everyone else in a very weird manner it says on the one hand we want your recognition but we don't want you to speak.
	We are going to recognize you because you're human, but we are curtailing your right to free speech.
	So we are not recognizing you in expressing your grievances.
	They only want the recognition of their groups with protected characteristics.
	Because as we said before on your previous segment, all these groups have really different understandings and views of what constitutes peaceful coexistence.
	Now, let's look at this link by Nick Buckley.
	He says, kids always go against the orthodoxy.
	They rebel, they always have.
	Pride is now seen as the orthodoxy and the kids are now rebelling.
	And this is just foolish because as we know from Greta Thunberg, kids will look for any reason whatsoever to get a day off school.
	So if you give them a reason, Yeah, and I think that this is leading to a sort of politicization of students.
	You may tell me, Stelios, it's 2023, you didn't wake up yesterday.
	Yes, I didn't wake up yesterday, but it's good to say that It's good to remind ourselves that when we politicize education so much, especially in school, we are basically brainwashing people because the people who are funding, let's say, these efforts, they basically don't care about critical education.
	They don't care about that.
	Because that's how they empower people to criticize them.
	They want to generate the new, let's say, generation of voters or the new generation of political supporters.
	And that is why they constantly try to brainwash people in schools.
	And it's good every now and then to see some backlash.
	It is nice.
	Yes.
	And let's go on the last link, yeah, to end with a white pill because I'm an optimist and I sort of have a sunny disposition that I don't want to part with.
	From the Free Speech Union, it says, a Christian teaching assistant who was dismissed for gross misconduct after sharing Facebook posts criticizing plans to teach LGBT plus relationship in primary schools has won an appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

▲