In the wake of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s written statement to the House of Commons last week, announcing her intention to “pause” the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, Eliot Wilson asks ‘Are Labour scared of hearing things they don’t like?’
This vital piece of legislation was due to come into force on 1st August, having received cross-party support during the last Parliament. Writing for Cap X, Wilson continues: “If you believe that free speech is a vital part of our liberal democratic society – I do – and that there is credible evidence to suggest that it is under pressure in institutions of higher education – I do – then Phillipson’s decision is disappointing and worrying.
“Despite differences in political ideology, I like and respect the Education Secretary: she is a dedicated, intelligent figure who grew up in difficult circumstances in the North East of England, took the opportunities offered by education at a voluntary-aided Catholic school and read modern languages at Oxford. She takes public office seriously, and I would not suggest that she is motivated by some repressive loathing of free expression.
“On a broader level, though, I think she, and the government as a whole, prefer nebulous guardrails to exist around public debate and would rather not be confronted by ideas they dislike or find distasteful. Although the education secretary talked about the regulatory burden of the act, a government source told the BBC that its provisions could amount to an ‘anti-semite charter’, because they would potentially allow Holocaust deniers to speak at university or student events. The Whitehall line also argues that this is all unnecessary stoking of the so-called ‘culture wars’, given existing legal protections for free speech at universities.
Wilson goes on to argue: “freedom of speech is not inherent or inevitable. It doesn’t just happen, because human beings can be malicious, lazy, frightened and indifferent. Like any freedom it has to be defended and maintained. The 2023 act was an attempt, irrespective of its specific provisions, to shore up the protection of a freedom for which the previous statutory basis was inadequate. That there have been almost no prosecutions under section 43 of the 1986 act could be taken as meaning there is perfect freedom of speech in British universities; but many people will tend to interpret it more as showing the measure’s toothlessness.
Wilson concludes: “I am not arguing that it must be the existing act or nothing, and Bridget Phillipson has pledged to ‘consider options’. But looking at the new government, and its track record in opposition, I see absolutely nothing to suggest it will be galvanised to defend the right to say awkward, unpalatable or uncomfortable things in public. That, though, is how it must work. Having cited Sir Gavin Williamson, I will go further outside my comfort zone to Noam Chomsky: ‘If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’”
Worth reading in full.
At the Free Speech Union, we’ve been taking advice on a range of legal options about the Government’s shocking decision to sabotage the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, 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, but to do so we need to raise as much money as possible.
So, if you’re reading this article as one of our supporters, now is the time to step off the sidelines, join the fight and become a dues-paying FSU member (to do that, click here).
Members and supporters alike can also donate to our Legal Fighting Fund (click here).
