That’s Debatable!

The Knight's Tale

It’s been 100 days since Sir Keir Starmer formed his new government and it’s fair to say that they have not been great for freedom in the UK. From the resurrection of Non-Crime Hate Incidents through to the establishment of a new unit commissioned with delivering a Bill to ban trans-inclusive conversion therapy, it’s quite the shopping list of free expression issues. Sadly – though perhaps not surprisingly – the July halting of the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act is now having real life consequences. On 10th October, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman was due to speak about her career and life in politics to the Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA), which she led 20 years ago as a student. But the event was cancelled due to safety concerns after “Cambridge for Palestine”, a campaign group, called on supporters to “no platform” the “far Right”, claiming her “hyper-authoritarian populist policies on migration, policing and protest” represented “everything we stand against”. The FSU has since reached out to Ms Braverman and CUCA offering to pay the security costs to allow the talk to go ahead at a later date. An editorial piece in The Times  lays out that paper’s own concerns for students and free thinking. Meanwhile, Nottingham university has slapped a trigger warning on Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, apparently because they contain ‘expressions of Christian faith’. Yet writing a collection of stories about characters on a pilgrimage from London to the tomb of Saint Thomas Becket without mentioning the Church, Jesus or the Bible would be quite the achievement! We end on an upbeat note with a mention of the upcoming Battle of Ideas. The event takes place in London this weekend, 19-20 October and tickets are available here, but FSU members can get a discounted price using the link provided in the Weekly News Round-Up.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Discussion with Bernie Spofforth

We are delighted to welcome Bernadette (‘Bernie’) Spofforth onto ‘That’s Debatable!’ this week. The FSU offered to defend Bernie after she was arrested for a social media post on X on 29th July in the wake of the tragic Southport stabbings. She was held in custody for 36 hours on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications – this was in spite of the fact that she added the caveat “if this is true”, and deleted the relevant tweet when she discovered it wasn’t. In August, Cheshire Police confirmed Ms Spofforth had been arrested “in relation to social media post containing inaccurate information” and that she had been bailed “pending further enquiries”. However, in a video first posted to X, Bernie said the force had now decided to take NFA, or ‘no further action’. Her message continued: “Firstly, thank you for all of your messages, and I’m so sorry I haven’t responded or replied to any of you, but I couldn’t. I would have been locked up in a cell again for breaching bail conditions if I had”. Today’s conversation provides a first-hand account of the worrying state of free expression in the UK and you can find more background information on Bernie’s ordeal here.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

A report published this week by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services confirms that police actions such as ‘taking the knee’ or wearing rainbow lanyards are causing confusion amongst police officers and undermining public confidence. The review also suggested that police officers have been recording trivial matters such as non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) because of worries about getting into trouble. We briefly touch on an article by Labour MP Graham Stringer in The Sun that highlights how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has shocked MPs of all political stripes before moving on to the murky world of government statistics. The Times reported this week that 2021 census figures claiming there are 262,000 transgender people in England and Wales have had to be formally downgraded. The Office for National Statistics admitted that there was “potential for bias” in answers to the question: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”. Yet, as we discuss in the episode, reliable statistics are the essential building block for informing public debate, especially when the underlying issue is so culturally taboo that there are repeated attempts to shut down debate. Finally for this week, we dip into an excellent article by Greg Lukianoff in Quillette. He lays out twelve assertions that are frequently made against free expression before marshalling the counterarguments to demonstrate why each of them is flawed. 
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Man's Best Friend Cancelled!

A graph of FSU membership growth up to the end of August was shared on our social media channels this week and it is impossible to miss the moment at which the new government began its crackdown on free expression in Britain. As listeners and viewers will already know, one of this government’s earliest anti-free expression decisions was to shelve the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. The Telegraph revealed this week that Professor Arif Ahmed, who was to be the first director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, has been named as an interested party on the FSU’s application for a Judicial Review of the Education Secretary’s decision. This means that he will be able to make written submissions to the High Court and also appear in person with a barrister to challenge the Government on its arguments. The FSU’s chief legal counsel, Dr Bryn Harris, is quoted in the article, “These proceedings are of the highest constitutional importance. For almost 350 years, the governance of this country has rested on a golden premise: ministers of the Crown may not set aside the law made by Parliament”. Underlining the urgent need for the (now paused) Higher Education Act to be activated, the Telegraph has also reported on the extent to which students on campus are scared to speak their mind for fear of being cancelled. Meanwhile, yet another ludicrous speech code was revealed this week in the Mail, this time at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, a UN agency. The latest target of the speech police is gendered language, meaning no more fishermen, Englishmen or, rather oddly, lumberjacks. Finally, two religious groups have independently raised concerns about the All Party Parliamentary Definition of Islamophobia that appears to be looming ever larger on the legislative road ahead. The Network of Sikh Organisations has written to the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this definition would negatively impact the ability of people to freely discuss religion, speak openly about historical truths, and cause an amplification of a government hierarchy for different faiths. Separately, Christian Today raises concerns that Christians who deny Islam is a saving faith could also fall foul of the law.  
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

The Return of the Non-Crime Hate Incident

The government has this week continued its extrajudicial onslaught on civil liberties. As reported in The Telegraph, the Home Secretary is now “committed to reversing the Tories’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of non-crime hate incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so they can be logged by police”. But the underlying premise here isn’t true. Ms Braverman’s 2023 Code of Practice never prevented the recording of NCHIs. Rather, it just put the recording and retention of NCHIs on a lawful footing. Freddie Attenborough, the FSU’s Communications Officer, provides all the background in his excellent article for The Critic. Meanwhile, documents revealed as part of the FSU’s legal challenge to the pausing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act note that “concerns” had been raised with the government about the “consequences for delivering English [higher education] in foreign countries which have restrictions on free speech”. Toby Young, our general secretary, is quoted, “It’s becoming increasingly clear that the reason universities lobbied the Government to quash the Freedom of Speech Act is because they’re worried it will jeopardise their cosy relationship with various authoritarian regimes, particularly the People’s Republic of China. Bridget Phillipson should have told them to put principle before profit, not done their bidding”. Moving to the school sector, guidance has been created for teacher training courses, to ensure future educators are “anti-racist” and challenge “whiteness”. Given that this kind of attack on Britain’s culture and history shows no sign of abating, we are particularly excited about an upcoming book launch hosted by the FSU to introduce Professor Frank Furedi’s new book, “The War Against the Past: Why the West Must Fight for its History”. Join us on Thursday 12 September, either in person or online.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Online Anonymity

Given the ongoing civil unrest across the UK, we are worried that the new government is about to clamp down harder and faster on our free expression than we might have first thought. Specifically, over the weekend there has been a railing against online anonymity, something that Ben Sixsmith covers in a piece for the Critic. A hastily rolled-out ban on anonymity could be a dragnet that stifles entirely lawful and benign speech and ensnares innocent people.
Regular listeners and viewers will already be familiar with the Education Secretary’s move to halt the commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. We said that we would be taking action and, as reported in the Telegraph, the FSU has now sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Education Secretary, threatening a judicial review if she doesn’t reverse her decision. We have also this week been prompted to write to a local council to threaten Judicial Review of a PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order). The PSPO passed by Thanet District Council means people within the area covered can now be fined or even face a criminal conviction for “causing a disturbance to others” or being “pejorative” in public, among other things. It effectively imposes a strict liability speech offence, with none of the safeguards which Parliament and the courts have deemed necessary when restricting people’s fundamental rights and liberties.
We end today with news of a positive outcome for the sociologist Laura Favaro, who claimed that she had been denied access to her own research data after she wrote an article for Times Higher Education about how female scholars feared career damage if they criticised the idea that transgender women should be considered the same as people who are born female in all aspects of public life. We also briefly mention Almut Gadow’s case, the background to which is laid out on her crowdjustice page. Now that the government has sabotaged the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, Almut’s case has become even more important in our battle to recover academic free expression.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

We Fight On!

Last week, the new Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson issued a written statement to the House of Commons saying she intended to ‘pause’ the Freedom of Speech Act. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was the one tangible thing the Conservatives did to defend free speech in the past 14 years. Indeed, it was thanks to the lobbying efforts of the Free Speech Union that this legislation found itself on to the statute books. It would have imposed a new legal duty on English universities to uphold and promote freedom of speech on campus, and it created a couple of enforcement mechanisms, such as a new statutory tort, to make sure universities didn’t ignore that duty. At the Free Speech Union, we’ve been taking advice on a range of legal options, and without wishing to tip our hand, it’s safe to say Bridget Phillipson will be hearing from us shortly. The bottom line is we intend to fight this wanton act of vandalism with all we’ve got. If you’re not already a member of the FSU, and would like to join the fight, do please join. Meanwhile, in the world of the judiciary, a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The Telegraph reports that this new version advises Judges in England and Wales to avoid terms such as “asylum seekers”, “immigrant”, “gays” and “lame”, all of which are now deemed “politically incorrect”. Finally, Toby Young has written in this week’s Spectator about the appointment of Becky Francis CBE to lead a review of the national curriculum. He writes, “As former director of the Institute of Education and current CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, [Becky Francis] has the outward appearance of a technocrat. But scratch the surface and, like so many Labour appointees, she emerges as a long-standing adherent of left-wing identity politics”.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

The EDI Hydra

After a week that included the attempted assassination of former President Trump and the breaking news that President Biden will no longer be standing in November’s US election, we discuss how political polarisation so rapidly fosters an environment in which cancel culture thrives. Of particular note is the manner in which many on the right are now calling for the cancellation of people making off colour remarks about the attempt on President Trump’s life, a troubling phenomenon that Brendan O’Neill writes about this week in the Spectator. Closer to home, and in the wake of last year’s debanking of Nigel Farage, we discuss the findings from a review by the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) on whether parliamentarians, senior public servants and their families are treated fairly by financial institutions. As the Guardian reports, the FCA is telling financial firms to ensure their definition of a PEP (politically exposed person), family member, or close associate is “tightened to the minimum required by law” and not to go beyond that. In light of the FCA’s advice, the FSU will be writing to Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and City Minister, to remind her that the amendments to the Payment Services Regulations that we campaigned for enjoyed cross-party support and the present Government should now get on and make them. The fight against politicised Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (‘EDI’) training in the workplace looks set to continue as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, launches a four-year scheme to ‘embed an inclusive culture’ and reduce ‘microaggressions’ at Transport for London (TfL) – something that is expected to ratchet up a bill close to £2.5m. As the Telegraph highlights, unconscious bias training was scrapped at central government level four years ago after an official review found the courses did not change behaviour or improve workplace equality. Like the Lernaean Hydra, it seems that no sooner do we chop one head off the EDI monster than two more grow back.
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

On Tuesday 9 July, the Free Speech Union was honoured to bring together an expert panel that included whistleblowers Sue Evans and Dr David Bell from the Tavistock Clinic, who risked their careers and much more to pursue the truth. As anticipated, the evening was a unique opportunity for us to learn the core free expression lesson from the Cass Report and the Tavistock scandal: that open inquiry and freedom of speech are essential to protecting us from pernicious ideas. Both Tom and Ben were fortunate enough to attend in person and much of today’s episode is spent pondering the thoughts and threads that resonated with them most strongly. We also discuss a London council’s attempt to label a Bloomsbury monument of Virginia Woolf with a digital tag that highlights her alleged ‘imperialist attitudes’. The story was reported in the Mail and it is heartening to witness Emma Woolf robustly defending her great aunt on Twitter/X: ‘You couldn't make it up. The wokerati of Camden Council have decided that this statue of my great-aunt Virginia Woolf in Bloomsbury needs a QR code to explain her 'offensive' attitudes. Just to be clear, this was a woman born in 1882. Are they expecting her to trot out the Wokery of 2024? Virginia was a feminist, socially progressive, a literary pioneer, politically active (Fabian Society etc), she was way ahead of her time in so many ways’ . 
‘That's Debatable!’  is edited by Jason Clift.

There May Be Trouble Ahead

While the FSU persists in its mission to remain politically non-partisan, we are worried that the new government could bring in laws that criminalise vast swathes of speech. Freddie Attenborough highlights these concerns in an article for our website and we begin today with a discussion around the five primary free expression issues that he identifies: the APPG definition of Islamophobia, Labour’s proposed Race Equality Act, a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, a possible Hate Crime & Public Order Act (England & Wales), and greater restriction on the freedom of the press. In the coming years, we suspect we will need to fight a number of test cases in which we challenge whether the new laws are compatible with our existing legislation, including the Human Rights Act. The reality of the UK’s free speech problem is underlined by our quarterly analysis of FSU casework stats, which is hot off the press. Since our inception in February 2020, we have handled nearly 2,700 cases and, when we know the outcome, we achieve a favourable outcome for our members over 75% of the time. Shockingly, nearly one quarter of the workplace cases that we see lead to initial dismissal or the loss of a working contract (though FSU involvement may ultimately lead to some form of vindication for our member). This highlights how rapidly situations escalate in these fraught times. We end with the good news that, with our help, an FSU member has successfully fought back after being banned from a pub for gender critical views. It is especially chilling to note that this happened to a prospective parliamentary candidate during the UK’s general election campaign, a time when a robust exchange of differing political opinions is surely an essential part of the democratic process.   
‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.