On Tuesday, Rishi Sunak launched the Conservative Party election manifesto, Clear Plan, Bold Action, Secure Future, and we’ve reviewed the document for what it has to say about the five freedoms we defend – freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. Here are the key pledges:
CRACKING DOWN ON EDI-INITIATIVES
“Halving the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on external consultants. We will introduce controls on all ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion’ [EDI] initiatives and spending.” (p.11).
The FSU approves of this. Contrary to the popular slogan that expenditure on these initiatives is “just good business”, it’s more of an an ‘EDI Tax’, as we wrote in a recent briefing doc.
According to a survey of a representative sample of UK workers undertaken on behalf of the FSU, many ambitious employees and senior managers are now leaving companies because of the excessive time they’re expected to spend on EDI courses. Ironically, they prove most irksome to those they purport to benefit, i.e., members of the LGBTQ+ community and ethnic minorities.
You can read our report here.
PROTECTING TEACHERS FROM BLASPHEMY ACCUSATIONS
“We will ban protests outside schools to stop mobs from intimidating teachers and children. We will always support teachers to uphold and promote fundamental British values and ensure they are protected from accusations of blasphemy.” (p.46).
This Conservative Party pledge follows publication of a report by Lord Walney, the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption, who said that protesters “are intimidating schools and teacher when children are taught things they disagree with”. Among Lord Walney’s recommendations was a plan to introduce expedited Public Space Protection Orders (e-PSPOs) for public places in the vicinity of schools.
Last November, a YouGov survey of more than 1,000 teachers conducted for Policy Exchange found that 16% of them admitted to self-censoring to avoid causing religious offence. The think tank’s report found that a worrying proportion of teachers believe that images of the prophet Muhammad should never be used in classrooms, even in the teaching of Islamic art or ethics. As many as 55% of teachers said they would not use an image of Muhammad – higher for teachers of art (64%) and citizenship (60%) – and a further 9% would not do so as a result of the Batley Grammar School protests.
The FSU remains unconvinced that public space protection orders (PSPOs) are an appropriate mechanism for protecting teachers from protests at the school gate. We know from our ongoing campaign against the use of PSPOs by local authorities across England and Wales that they risk criminalising conduct which causes ‘alarm or distress’ with no safeguards for free speech.
NO COMMITMENT TO BANNING ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’
Unlike the Lib Dem manifesto, which pledges to “ban all forms of conversion therapies and practices”, the Conservatives say they want to “take more time before reaching a final judgement on additional legislation in this area”. The relevant section of the manifesto states:
“We are clear that no one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are. That is why we are proud that the UK has one of the world’s strongest legislative frameworks to prevent and tackle discrimination and harassment against those with particular protected characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender reassignment. Attempts at so-called ‘conversion therapy’ are abhorrent. But legislation around conversion practices is a very complex issue, with existing criminal law already offering robust protections. The challenges involved can be seen, for example, with the SNP re-consulting for views on their proposals in Scotland and Sweden recently concluding that they will not be pursuing a similar ban. In light of the Cass Review Final Report, it is right that we take more time before reaching a final judgement on additional legislation in this area.” (p.59)
The FSU welcomes this cautious approach. We have written previously about the likely impact legislation of this kind will have on free speech (here), e.g. it could criminalise conversations in which health professionals and parents try to discourage gender-confused adolescents from embarking on irreversible medical pathways on the grounds that such conversations are an attempt to ‘convert’ someone from being transgender to cisgender.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH CREDENTIALS
“We were proud to deliver the Freedom of Speech Act to protect free speech and open debate in our universities.” (p.70)
It is greatly to the previous government’s credit that it brought forward this legislation, the proper name of which is the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
The FSU campaigned for this Act for three years. We lobbied for the Bill when the Government was weighing up whether it was needed, advised the Government on what to include in it, defended it from critics in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, helped to amend it and, finally, mobilised our allies in Parliament to get it over the line.
About 20% of the 2,500+ cases we’ve dealt with in the past four years have involved universities and we believe that in almost every one of these cases the student or academic who’s got into trouble would have been in a stronger position if this new law had been on the statute books.
NO LEVESON INQUIRY PART TWO
Unlike the Lib Dems, whose manifesto states they will “support independent, Leveson-regulation” and “proceed with Part Two of the Leveson Inquiry”, the Conservative Party Manifesto says:
“The Conservative Party is a strong defender of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We oppose state regulation and control of the press, including any attempt to bring forward Leveson 2 or re-open the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press.” (p.70).
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which was introduced in the wake of the Leveson inquiry, was repealed by the outgoing government in the concluding days of the last Parliament.
The provision met with widespread opposition from newspaper groups and press freedom advocates concerned that it would force news publishers to pay the costs of any court judgement if they were not a member of the state-approved regulator Impress, regardless of the court judgment. Press industry body the News Media Association previously welcomed the proposed repeal of Section 40, arguing that it would be “a very welcome step forward for press freedom”.
Although the provision had never been brought into force by the Conservatives, it remained on the statute book and could therefore have been activated by an incoming Labour government.
“We oppose state regulation and control of the press, including any attempt to bring forward Leveson 2 or re-open the Royal Charter on self-regulation of the press.” (p.70).
The first part of the Leveson inquiry, which was held throughout 2011 and 2012, investigated “the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police” and considered “the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct”.
Leveson Part Two was intended to scrutinise relationships between journalists and the police, politicians and public officials, but was abandoned by the Conservative government in 2018 following a public consultation which indicated only 12% of direct respondents had been in favour of continuing with the inquiry.
At the time, media organisations and free speech campaigners welcomed the move, arguing that Leveson Part Two would be bad news for investigative journalism, making it harder for journalists to obtain information from police.
The Free Speech Union is opposed to state regulation of the press for obvious reasons, and therefore approves of this commitment.
