Count Dankula Sentenced, Sargon of Akkad and Helen Dale Speak in his Defense
Count Dankula Fined £800 and received no jail time. Many protesters in London spoke out in Defense of Dankula stating that beyond the fine the charge and conviction set precedent that they disagree with.Many protesters spoke about the danger they perceive in response to the actions of law enforcement in Scotland and how this will have a huge impact on speech in the UK.SUPPORT JOURNALISM. Become a patron athttp://www.patreon.com/TimcastMy Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnewsMake sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday.Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Can I ask you, there's some certain allegations going around there.
Allegations?
Allegations going around from our community that police are working with Hope Not Hate, which are prided as a far left organisation that go with Antifa as well.
And they're sending information, like at the, there was a football lads arena in Birmingham, and one witness saw one Antifa shaking hands with a policeman.
We're exchanging information.
That's not uncommon.
If we are working with an organiser, and we work with all sorts of organisers, it doesn't mean that we share their viewpoint.
It just means that we're working with them to offer it, to have cooperation on the day.
There's this notion out there, I just want to make sure whether the allegation that if the police are working with Antifa, I don't want, that would sound really fucking crazy to me.
The police are working with a much more sinister organisation called the government.
Antifa, these guys are policing completely immoral laws and she will do what she's told.
Well, we've stepped away for a little bit, and I wanted to talk to some people about how they felt, and I wanted to officially state the verdict on what happened with Count Dankula in terms of his sentencing and his plans.
So, with me, we have, obviously, Mr. Sargon of Akkad.
No, I don't think he should even pay the £800, and I really hope he does, because ultimately I want him to come out of this with them saying that he did nothing wrong, because he didn't.
Alright, well, more importantly, I live-streamed the protest and a lot of the speeches, but it's, you know, so I'll try and throw some of that footage in, but for the most part I think We'll just talk about how you guys feel about what happened.
Do you feel it was a success?
You're an organiser, I mean, you're wearing the shirt.
Well, I think the best way to sort of put it into context is a lot of people would have thought of this as, you know, walking along the pavements from Leicester Square to Downing Street.
It wasn't that.
They had to close down one side of the road to get the channel of people there.
So there was clearly demand, and I thought the turnout was amazing, and the atmosphere was amazing, too.
Yeah, well, we've got no choice, you know, they can whinge about it from behind their keyboards all they want, but they're not going to change anything, so what's their opinion matter?
The whole Kekastani flag, like obviously I'm not for that, but just, you know, actually Personally, because you know, on a personal level, I'm friends with Count Dankula, so for me it was just, you know, showing support.
If I could have gone to Scotland, I would have today.
Like, if I could have.
But, you know, this is the second best thing.
And yeah, if people want to be edgy and just, like, mean in real life, then let them do it.
At the end of the day, what matters is that we are actually, we are in a position in the UK where we don't have free speech.
And someone has to say something about it.
I think I can speak for the audience over there and everyone here when I say I'm willing to be called cringy if I'm standing up for something as important as freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom to make a joke about anything.
The Kekesani flags are used often in the media to prove, I'm doing air quotes here, prove that this is actual Nazi imagery, that these people are actually supporting or dog-whistling to Nazis.
I talked to you about this on stream, but Yeah, do you wanna... How do you answer to, like, their use of the Pakistani flag as, like, a way to... Nazis generally don't like it when people mock them.
unidentified
Yeah.
And, uh, the Pakistani flag's a mockery of the Nazis.
So, uh, yeah, I would be amazed if the Nazis legitimately were in favor of it.
I mean, I have seen people at far- I don't want to accuse everyone of being far-right, but like, some of these nationalistic, far-right, neo-Nazi-ish types of people.
I'm saying it that way because I'm not trying to blanket everybody a Nazi, I'm trying to avoid that, but they do have the symbols.
unidentified
They want to co-opt it, I suppose, and turn it into something that it's not, when it's just a bit of meme-a-rooting.
It's a bit of shitposting.
And they do this to everything.
They know that the left-wing media will tar anything that they touch as being entirely to do with what they do, and they use this as a way of trying to normalize their views.
But at the end of the day, it only works if you let the left-wing media control the narrative on it, and I'm not going to.
Some of the things you said, I was talking to some people after the event and they said, wow, what he said is going to be taken out of context for sure.
Because you quoted some very touchy subjects.
unidentified
Oh yeah.
I told you it'd be spicy.
It reinforces the reasoning that context and intent matter.
Because the thing is, I don't think anyone can take anything from that speech and suggest that what I said was racist.
No, in fact, everything you said after your quote, which was arguably the racist part, you then refuted the whole thing.
Exactly.
This is the thing, right?
People are afraid to address the hard questions, right?
One of the things that drives me crazy is the Jewish question.
It's like, okay, what's the left-wing answer to why Jewish people are in high places in the media?
If they don't have one, they're going to look like it might be a conspiracy, and it persuades people that you can't answer it.
The answer is that Jewish people on average have a high verbal IQ.
Where are people with high verbal IQ going to end up?
Oh, in the media.
Oh, what a surprise.
It's the same reason Asians have high IQs, mathematical IQs, so they end up in technology.
I want to point out something that we were talking about earlier, and hopefully I can frame this properly, but someone was having an argument with me about why they supported Richard Spencer.
I made a comment about something Richard Spencer said when he used a racial slur, and was told he never said that.
I pulled up on Google to Google search it, because I've seen it so many times, I couldn't find it.
And I'm sitting here scratching my head, but am I wrong?
Did he not say these racial slurs?
I must have made a mistake.
And then I noticed on Google it said, some of these search results have been removed under European protection laws.
So, it's my assumption, but I can only assume that the reason I couldn't find these things, which I know to exist, are that in Europe, they've been removed.
So, I don't know.
I don't want to confirm that.
I don't want to sit here and act like I know 100%.
That's exactly what happened.
But in terms of the context of supporting free speech, what this said to me was, I literally can't prove a point as to why I disagree with someone because they've potentially hidden the language.
unidentified
Not to mention the fact that just ostracizing someone because they've said one bad thing doesn't mean that they don't have something valuable to say.
So let's, I want to make sure I absolutely clarify this.
I have no way of knowing exactly what happened.
But taking from this, from my potential assumption, which may or may not be true, but thinking
about the future of hate speech laws.
Hate speech laws.
If they do say, these words need to be removed from the internet, you are sanitizing racists.
You are sanitizing actual hateful individuals or things like that.
unidentified
One of the key things from the Count Dankula case that came out was that because the judge had stated that the intent and context were irrelevant, the reporters who came, who then said, you said this, and then they said what you said, And he would rightfully shut them down this morning and said, so what you've just said there, without context and without intent, is worthy of the crime which I am being now committing.
Well, one of the things I brought up before is that the mirror, I believe, so I apologize if I'm wrong about the outlets, but I believe it was the mirror, the sun, and the Daily Mail ran Either a clip or the entirety of the Nazi Pug video, and they've been up for two years without repercussion.
Not only that, many outlets including The Independent used the exact same language in their articles.
And so I have to wonder, I'm trying to figure out at what point Dankula committed the crime.
Was it saying the words in his private home?
Was it the filming of the words?
Was it uploading of the video?
Because it wasn't his intention behind the video.
unidentified
Because it wasn't that he was trying to reach a wider audience.
It's definitely... But is there a difference between uploading the clip entirely, which they're profiting from, and taking clips of it and commenting on them for something newsworthy?
It's one thing if, you know, when I make a video, I say, X, Y, and Z happened and here's a clip of that.
What they did was they took his whole video and published it on their server with ads.
unidentified
Yeah, it's because the, basically the, um, it's similar to what happened in Canada with Lindsey Shepard, right?
Where it's all in the framing, right?
So as long as they were disparaging of this clip and this thing, then of course the left leaves them alone.
But of course, if you frame it neutrally, and you're not disparaging, And you're saying, let's have a discussion about this, then you're going to be flayed.
And, you know, honestly, I'm not advocating for them to face repercussions for doing this, but at the same time, I find it rather ridiculous that Dankula himself is... You know, it's a joke, and if we think... This is just my opinion, so you don't have to listen to me, but I feel like If someone made a joke that's really stupid and you think it's bad, you shouldn't lock them up, find them, spend two years of their lives going to court.
You simply say, don't do this again, here's your warning.
I mean, am I... Why even the warning?
unidentified
Well, no, no, no, no.
I'm saying if... It's the equivalent of saying to someone... Let's say someone has... They're disabled, they have special needs and they don't articulate themselves well.
You take people with Tourette's.
Are you going to imprison people with Tourette's for saying things that they either can't control themselves saying, Or that they are not necessarily in their right mindset.
But hold on, there was an article a few years ago, and forgive me if I'm incorrectly remembering this, but I read this not too long ago that said China was praising the world for Adopting similar policies to the Great Firewall.
I'm a columnist for The Spectator and a solicitor, which probably sounds very rude to Americans, but I think you would say a trial lawyer or a trial attorney in America.
I used to practice up in Scotland.
Scotland has a different legal system from that in England and Wales, but I'm qualified in both.
And I became very familiar with the style of Scottish comedy and Scottish humour, and the expression that's used to describe this is Scottish banter.
And one of those marches, one of the biggest marches in British history, was the Countryside Alliance March, which was about the fox hunting ban, which is going to sound so extraordinarily niche to an American audience, I'm very sorry.
And so it's just not something that we traditionally do.
So it was a meeting of two different streams of politics in a way that I had not expected.
It was very new.
My speech, very briefly, was I wanted to ensure that people didn't argue for guilt by association.
One of the originally programmed speakers in London, but he finished up going up to Scotland, was a chap called Tommy Robinson.
He's perceived as a racist over here and also a football lout.
He's considered low class.
That's just going to sound so British, but that's all I can really say.
I had to argue, well actually no, something doesn't stop being true because of what people, the people who believe in it.
It's either true or it's not, and if someone who you don't like believes in the same thing as you, that doesn't invalidate the truth of the idea, and in this case it's freedom of speech.
So I wanted to deal with that issue.
The next issue is I wanted to defend this particular aspect of Scottish culture.
The Scottish banter.
Save Scottish banter.
Because it was something I experienced a lot of when I worked in Scotland and when I practiced in Scotland.
And it's something for which I have a great deal of admiration.
Scottish people are very funny.
That's why they produce these remarkable comedians like Frankie Boyle and Billy Connolly and many many others.
But yes, Scottish people, a lot of just regular Scottish people are just very funny.
I used to work at the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Parliament and my work colleagues would just come out with streams of this stuff and there would be hours where I didn't get any work done because I was laughing so hard.
It's a wonderful gift that they've got, and Count Dankula is in that tradition of Scottish banter.
And even Scots law, to a degree, traditionally has protected the role of Scottish banter, which is what makes this judgement so awful.
And then the third thing I wanted to do, which is very niche and I won't go into any detail here, is just, I wanted to argue that for the repeal of this piece of legislation, and the reason it needs to be repealed is because it was originally drafted in 1935, and enacted in 1935, to stop harassing telephone calls.
So I have a question that I've asked time and time again, and maybe you might have some insight on.
Media companies have published, in the entirety, this clip of the Nazi pug.
So if the judge said the context and intent don't matter, why are the media companies allowed to, and I don't mean they mentioned it or showed a clip, I mean there are media companies who just uploaded the entire thing, without comment, or, here's the video.
Ah, right, okay, there is an exemption in section 127 for media companies in the role of broadcasters reporting the news and I can, there is a, it's cut and dried, it's in the legislation and in the process of reporting the news and that is why, for example, I have friends of mine, Comedy Unleashed, which is a London comedy club, who showed the Count Dankula clip in the context of a wider
presentation to their audience at the comedy club and they recorded it.
And they now can't upload it because they're just comedians who run a club.
But if they get a news organization to upload it, then the news organization will fall underneath
I think, you know, I think one of the issues too is if you look at the context of my career,
no one would argue it's not true.
And if a comedian tried to claim they're now a journalist... Then people would argue that that is untrue, yes.
But it's an argument.
Because anyone can become a journalist if they so choose.
You can say, you know what, I'm no longer a comedian, I now want to work in journalism, right?
In which case, I think one of the things that's more dangerous about hate speech laws, and why I'm so affected by it and so interested, is no matter what you do, you're going to negatively impact journalism and the right to know, right?
For Count Dankula to be punished for a joke, one of the things I've talked with Sargon, who's actually just right behind you now, is he mentioned this first, no matter what the law is, no matter, you know, some will say, oh, but Dankula only got an 800 pound fine.
That's actually, I'll just, as someone who's practiced in Scotland, that's quite a steep fine, and I have seen at Scottish Sheriff Courts, Fines are typically for that sort of thing are around the 300 to 400 pound stage and it is my view as someone who's practiced law in Scotland that the only reason he didn't go to jail was because of the publicity around this case.
I can't prove that.
I could be wrong.
I wasn't privy to the hearing.
So I take it with all of the caveats, but as someone who's actually practiced as a lawyer in Scotland, it is my view that the reason he didn't go to jail was precisely because of the publicity that the case is attracting.
I actually think the fine is the worst outcome possible, because, you know, essentially what happens is, Sargon mentioned this the other day, the law, the precedent has been set, you can be charged, convicted for jokes like this, and now that we've accepted it, in the future, the punishment will become steeper and steeper that the law will be used to its most extreme, eventually, right?
There's also the issue of The waste of resources involved in this.
Because it's based in England and Wales, I suppose the Scottish situation is quite complex because of the way the law is supposed to work and I won't go into that.
But you've just provided an opportunity for every ne'er-do-well and jobsworth to have a moan about something that they don't like and then go to the police with it.
Traditionally, people like me who write for The Spectator, who went to Oxford, and have a particular social background, don't necessarily talk to someone like you, although you're not British, so you're American, so you get a special pass as part of the special relationship.
But someone like Sargon would not be a person who I would necessarily have known about or heard of.
It seems like what happened with Count Dankula has essentially knocked over several dominoes, which has led to the coming together of different classes.
There were a lot of speakers, I didn't get to talk to everybody, but decent conversation, really interesting points being made by all.
Thanks for tuning in!
I'm actually heading back now to edit this video you're watching, so you can follow me on Twitter at TimCast, subscribe to my YouTube channel if you have not already, new videos every day at 4pm, and periodic livestreams like we saw today when the app isn't crashing, so if you want to watch the raw coverage, I have three different livestream videos from various points of the March, and Sargon's Speech is in, I believe, the second video, the second livestream video, so I'll put together a playlist or something.
