On Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer launched the Labour Party election manifesto, Change, 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.
Arguably, the Labour Party manifesto has less to say on these issues than the Liberal Democrat manifesto (which we’ve reviewed here), and the Conservative Party manifesto (here). Here are the key pledges:
EXTENDING PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
“The Conservatives weakened our country by disrespecting the legitimate role of devolved governments and parliaments. We will ensure members of devolved legislatures have the same free speech protections enjoyed by MPs at Westminster so elected representatives can hold power to account.” (p.109).
The reference here is to parliamentary privilege, which guarantees freedom of speech for MPs and Lords alike, allowing them to make statements in either chamber of the Houses of Parliament knowing they are protected from legal action and there is some protection for others’ repetition of their statements.
At present, however, members of the devolved legislatures and executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have the same free protections that MPs in Westminster have enjoyed for centuries.
In 2021, Conservative MP David Davis took to the floor in the House of Commons to say that the lack of privilege at Holyrood had created a “deficit of power” and with it, “a deficit of accountability”, preventing certain questions being asked of the Scottish Government during an official inquiry into its handling of misconduct complaints against former First Minister Alex Salmond.
Using parliamentary privilege he quoted from leaked text messages passed to him by a whistleblower which purported to show a concerted effort by SNP officials to whip up police complaints against Salmond. “If an MSP in Holyrood were to do the same,” Davis told the House, “they would likely find themselves facing down prosecution” from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Days later, this intervention prompted agreement from Sir Keir Starmer, who on a visit to Scotland alongside Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: “It is obviously very important that parliamentarians can get up, as they can in Westminster, and make points, raise issues or concerns… without fear of legal consequences.”
Neither the Lib Dems nor the Conservatives refer to this issue in their respective manifestos.
The FSU approves of this pledge. Extending parliamentary privilege to the devolved parliaments will allow for more robust questioning of ministers.
BANNING ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’
As with the Liberal Democrats, Labour is planning to ban all forms of so-called conversion therapy. The Conservative Party manifesto, on the other hand, takes a more cautious approach, stating that it will “take more time before reaching a final judgement on additional legislation” on this “very complex issue”. The relevant section of the Labour Party manifesto states:
“So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity. We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.” (p.89).
Conversion therapies and practices aim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The FSU has written previously about the likely impact legislation of this kind will have on free speech (here).
The risk is that a poorly worded bill in which terms like ‘conversion therapy’ and ‘conversion practice’ are defined in imprecise ways risks catching a wide range or conduct, effectively criminalising doctors, parents and teachers who try to discourage gender-confused adolescents from embarking on irreversible medical pathways on the grounds that such conversations are an attempt to ‘convert’ them from being transgender to cisgender.
In fact, even a carefully drafted trans inclusive ban that didn’t catch this type of conduct when presented for first reading in the Commons, would be in grave danger of being amended by members of the LGBT+ lobby as it made its way through Parliament.
That’s why the Free Speech Union has been lobbying against a conversion therapy ban and urging Parliamentarians to consider the unintended consequences for freedom of speech if a bill of this nature is brought forward.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RACE EQUALITY ACT
“Labour will introduce a landmark Race Equality Act, to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority people, strengthen protections against dual discrimination and root out other racial inequalities.” (p.88).
Discrimination on the grounds of “colour, race, or ethnic or national origins” is of course already banned by the Race Relations Act 1965. But what Labour is referring to here is not discrimination of this obvious and now largely defunct kind, but various statistical markers of what would otherwise be invisible “disparities” – such as, for instance, on-average differences in pay in the workplace. For Labour, such disparities are regarded as an index of discrimination and prejudice.
Given the extent to which Critical Race Theory has influenced Labour’s thinking on this issue, it seems likely that under their proposed Race Equality Act, workplace disparities that might actually have less to do with racial discrimination than, say, regional geography, familial structure, sex and social class, will nevertheless come to be viewed through a racial lens.
The attendant solution for organisations concerned to comply with the relevant provisions of this legislation, and suddenly faced with the task of evidencing progress in stamping out these “racial disparities”, will likely be the introduction of even more equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training initiatives focused on eradicating “unconscious bias” and “racial microaggressions” from the workplace.
That might sound like the sort of thing only a closet racist could possibly oppose. But as our Director of Data, Tom Harris, has pointed out across various research briefings (here and here) – and as we see each day in our case work at the FSU – the problem with EDI schemes is that they tend to take a dim view of workplace free speech, with trainers brooking no discussion, no debate, no dissent from the basic tenets of Critical Race Theory and Gender Identity Ideology.
