Weekly Briefing Archives – Page 2 of 12

Weekly news round-up

23rd March 2023

Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this email. If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities, and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship. But is this a genuine concern, or just an excuse to suppress dissenting points of view on issues like the Covid lockdowns, the mRNA vaccines, the war in Ukraine, climate change, drag queen story hour and 15-minute cities? And even if the threat is real and the concern is genuine, how can we trust these agencies to accurately identify dis- and misinformation?

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistleblower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response – the journalist Peter Hitchens and our General Secretary, who will be chairing the discussion.

Why not join us to discuss what we can do to dismantle the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex’ and defend the freedom to dissent?

In-person tickets for the event are now sold out, but you can join the waiting list in case places become available. Alternatively, if you’re an FSU member you can use the Zoom option to attend virtually – please register using the Zoom link supplied in recent emails from FSU events, or by clicking here.

New FSU report reveals police failing to teach officers about free speech

As reported in the Times, the FSU’s latest research briefing has revealed that a majority of police forces conduct next to no training on freedom of speech while a disproportionate amount of police time is spent on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training. Partly as a result, the police have neglected Article 10, as well as common law free speech protections, when investigating and recording ‘non-crime hate incidents’.

The FSU submitted FoI requests to all 41 English and Welsh police forces, excluding the British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Ministry of Defence Police. Nine forces failed to respond within the statutory deadline or notified us that their response was indefinitely delayed, 10 forces provided partial information, and 22 answered in full.

Based on these responses, we calculated that 78% of the police forces who responded to our requests are providing no training on Article 10, or inadequate training. The remainder did not answer the question.

Thirty-two forces answered a question asking for details of the training carried out in relation to EDI. One force claimed to hold no information on the subject and a further four stated that EDI was so highly integrated into every aspect of their training that it would exceed the cost limit of the Freedom of Information Act to extract the necessary information. Fourteen forces described EDI training as a “golden thread” running through every part of their training or reported that EDI was integral to standard training.

This means that for 56% of the police forces we surveyed, EDI is inextricably embedded in police training.

If Suella Braverman is serious about wanting to rein in the police’s nasty habit of recording NCHIs against anyone accused of saying something politically incorrect, it is essential that England and Wales’s 41 police forces receive proper free speech training.

You can read the FSU’s report by Research Officer Carrie Clark here.

The latest episode of the FSU’s podcast now available

In this week’s episode of That’s Debatable, Ben Jones and Tom Harris, two FSU officers, explore a variety of hot topics, from our new report on the inadequacies of police training to Oxfam’s 92-page ‘inclusive language’ guide.

Join them as they delve into the origins of the term ‘woke’ and revisit the topic of eBooks being censored after you’ve bought them. They also explore the challenges of dealing with misinformation and disinformation and the potential impact of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

So, sit back, relax, and embrace your inner alpaca (that concept is taken from an actual police training manual) as these two veterans of the free speech wars tackle these important issues and stimulate some healthy debate.

Click here to listen to the podcast, and don’t forget to search for ‘That’s Debatable’ on your favourite podcasting app and hit ‘subscribe’ so you don’t miss next week’s episode.

Peer disinvited from university over support for Ricky Gervais trans joke

A peer has been disinvited from a university debating society over her support for a transgender joke made by Ricky Gervais (GB News, Telegraph, Times).

Baroness Claire Fox, the founder of the Institute of Ideas free speech think tank and a member of our Advisory Council, was invited to Royal Holloway, University of London, to speak to students about the importance of debate.

But the University’s debating society claimed it was “strong armed” and “bullied” into cancelling the talk by the students’ union (RHSU), who claimed that inviting Baroness Fox was a breach of the University’s ‘No Platform For Hate Speech’ policy.

The reason? In an email to the debating society, Maia Jarvis, RHSU’s president, explained how “Claire Fox re-tweets and praises this video of Ricky Gervais being overtly transphobic”.

The tweet she cited was a 60-second clip of a stand-up routine in which the comedian joked about “the old-fashioned women, you know, the ones with wombs” and “the new ones we’ve been seeing lately with beards and cocks”. Baroness Fox, a non-affiliated life peer, had tweeted her support for how the video “skewered… trans-identity ideology”, adding: “I laughed. Kudos to @rickygervais for this.”

Ms Jarvis added in her email to the society: “I wonder if you have thought about the impact of bringing a person who is an advocate for hate towards trans people and publicly ridicules them.” Six other student societies also demanded the talk be cancelled because of Baroness Fox’s “transphobic views”.

It prompted Adam Ryan-Self, the debating society president, to axe the event. In a letter to Baroness Fox he explained: “After back and forth with the SU, it seems that they will find any way to make your visit onto campus an issue of student safety and wellbeing. I see it as nothing less than bullying.”

Addressing the incident during the House of Lords debate on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill on Tuesday, Baroness Fox said that “one of the most dispiriting aspects of this sorry affair was the response of Royal Holloway’s principal, Professor Julie Sanders, who, in a reply to the FSU, which took up the case… effectively said, ‘Nothing to see here’ – a real abdication of responsibility with an ‘all procedures were followed’ response”.

In light of the University’s response, the FSU will provide every assistance to the organisers should they wish to ‘safeguard’ free speech, freedom of expression and viewpoint diversity at Royal Holloway by inviting Baroness Fox again.

Meanwhile, the battle to stop the Higher Education Bill being neutered by university lobbyists in the House of Lords continues. At the conclusion of the debate on Tuesday, the Government accepted an amendment to the Bill which will mean the new statutory tort, whereby academics and students whose speech rights have been breached can sue universities in the crown court, can only be used as a last resort. We are now working with MPs to make sure the tort is strengthened when the Bill returns to the Commons next week.

Online Speakeasy with Simon Fanshawe – special offer for FSU members!

On Tuesday 18th April our General Secretary, Toby Young, will be joined in conversation at an exclusive, members-only Online Speakeasy with writer and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe OBE.

If you’re an FSU member, Zoom registration is free – click here to book your place.

Simon has had a career that stretches from being an award-winning comic (Perrier Award 1989) to a Sunday Times feature writer, as well as a broadcaster and columnist. He is the author of the best-selling book The Power of Difference, which has just been awarded Management Book of the Year 2022. In the book, Simon brings together his own experiences and the latest research to explain why inclusion is more than just being nice to people, why unconscious bias training isn’t the fix we need and why listening to all individual voices, not assuming that different groups of people have a single homogenous viewpoint, is key. (We’ve arranged a special offer on The Power of Difference for FSU members – click here and use the discount code ‘FHR20’ to receive a 20% discount on the paperback, hardback, eBook or paperback/eBook bundle.)

Simon co-founded Diversity by Design in 2010 and is Number 2 on HR Magazine’s 2022 list of most original thinkers. As a consultant he works with companies to celebrate difference and create true inclusion. But he is a diversity dissident. He thinks it’s a remarkable irony that ‘diversity’ is too often used as a tool of conformity, enforced by the weaponizing of offence. Inclusion, he says, has been turned inside out and now seems to mean that “you have to think like this, speak like this and behave like this. And if you don’t, we’ll exclude you.”

He is also now “the wrong kind of gay”. Not only does he think that biological sex matters and you can’t make good law based on subjective feelings but, having been one of the six co-founders of Stonewall, he has been publicly critical of their ‘no debate’ approach which he believes dishonours the legacy of the way equality for lesbians and gays was achieved between 1989 and 2014.

Stuart Waiton in conversation with author Lionel Shriver – register here!

Acclaimed American author Lionel Shriver will be talking to Stuart Waiton from the Scottish Union for Education about the importance of developing and understanding character and the apparent modern change to ‘identity affirmation’. The event is free, but you will need to register here.

Comedy Unleashed in Leeds – discounted tickets available to FSU members!

If you can get to Leeds on Friday 7th April, we are offering FSU members a special discount for a fabulous night of comedy with FSU Advisory Council member Andrew Doyle and others. Having consistently sold out shows in London for the past five years, Comedy Unleashed is bringing its refreshing brand of politically incorrect stand-up to The HiFi Club in Leeds. For tickets, click here and enter the discount code ‘SAMIZDAT’.

Weekly news round-up

16th March 2023

Free speech victory — Home Secretary introduces new non-crime hate incident guidance!

The FSU is delighted that the Home Secretary has published new draft guidance on the recording and retention of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ (or NCHIs) (Epoch Times, Mail, Sun, Telegraph, Times). We have been campaigning against the recording of NCHIs by the police for three years and although Suella Braverman hasn’t done away with the practice altogether, this is a huge step forward. Under the new Code of Practice, the police will have to exercise common sense and have due regard to the right to freedom of expression before recording an NCHI.

Members and supporters of the FSU should give themselves a pat on the back. Without your solidarity, this would not have been possible.

As the new draft Code of Practice says, “All efforts should be made [by officers] to avoid a chilling effect on free speech (including, but not limited to, lawful debate, humour, satire and personally held views).”

We don’t think people realise just how many NCHIs have been recorded in England and Wales since the College of Policing (CoP) first came up with the concept in its Hate Crime Operational Guidance in 2014.

That document made it mandatory for the police to record any report of a ‘hate incident’ as an NCHI, often in such a way that it can show up against a person’s name if an employer asks to see an enhanced criminal record check before offering them a job. In the five years following the publication of the CoP’s guidance, we estimate more than 250,000 NCHIs have been recorded by police forces in England and Wales. That’s an average of 66 per day. Little wonder, then, that the police don’t have time to send an officer round to your house if you report a burglary.

We should stress that we’re not talking about attempts to stir up hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation or people hurling racial abuse at football players on Twitter. Those are actual hate crimes, prohibited by law. The records we’re talking about are ‘non-crimes’, i.e., comparatively trivial episodes that, for the most part, the police should not be wasting their time on – such as a trans activist complaining about someone ‘misgendering’ them on Twitter.

So this new Code of Practice is long overdue. Not only does it caution police officers to think very carefully before recording an NCHI against a person’s name, but it instructs them not to record them against schoolchildren. That’s particularly important because, unlike actual crimes, ‘non-crimes’ aren’t automatically removed from a child’s record when they reach the age of 18.

“Even where the speech is potentially offensive, a person has the right to express personally-held views in a lawful manner,” it says. “This includes the right to engage in legitimate debate on political speech or speech discussing political or social issues where this is likely to be strong differences of opinion.”

Two people deserve special credit for this massive win.

First, the ex-copper Harry Miller, who had an NCHI recorded against his name in 2019 when a trans activist complained about him tweeting a comic verse about transwomen. Harry took Humberside Police and the CoP to court – first to the High Court, then to the Court of Appeal, backed by the FSU – and his courageous battle against this unlawful interference in his free speech has helped to win this victory (Guardian).

Second, the Conservative peer Lord Moylan. We worked closely with him – as well as Lord Pannick, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven – to secure an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which gave the Home Secretary the option to bring forward a Statutory Instrument containing a Code of Practice putting the recording and retention of NCHIs on a statutory footing. That is the option that Suella Braverman availed herself on Monday – without that amendment, she wouldn’t be able to issue the new guidance.

As our General Secretary, Toby Young pointed out in The Spectator, the Home Secretary should be congratulated for striking a blow in defence of free speech this week, but there’s more work to be done.

For instance, once the Code of Practice has been given the Parliamentary stamp of approval, all the police forces in England and Wales will have to wade through the 250,000+ NCHIs in their databases and remove any that wouldn’t merit being recorded under the new guidelines, which we believe is the vast majority. Consequently, if you think an NCHI has been recorded against your name please contact us and we can start the process of getting it removed. You can see some guidance we’ve already published about that here. (And you can also read our 2021 briefing on NCHIs here.)

‘That’s debatable’ – FSU launches new podcast

We’re very excited to launch our new podcast, That’s Debatable!, with dispatches from the frontline of the free speech wars, co-hosted by Tom Harris and Ben Jones, two members of the FSU’s staff. If you’re too busy to wade through this newsletter, it’s another way to keep up with the free speech news of the week.

In the first episode, ‘Pitchforks and Pronouns’, Tom and Ben discuss our recent victory over ‘non-crime hate incidents’, the aftershocks of Quran-gate, sensitivity readers, St. Gary of Broadcasting House and more.

Ben’s day job as deputy director of the cases team is to help our members who get into trouble for speaking their minds, and Tom, our data director, sees the facts and figures that prove how big the free speech crisis is. The team will discuss the free speech issues of the week, answer your questions, and let you know what we’re doing to fight back. The podcast will come out each Tuesday and will shortly be available on all the major podcasting platforms. In the meantime, you can listen here.

Online Speakeasy with Simon Fanshawe – special offer for FSU members!

The FSU is delighted to announce that on Tuesday 18th April our General Secretary, Toby Young, will be joined in conversation at an exclusive, members-only Online Speakeasy with writer and broadcaster Simon Fanshawe OBE.

Simon has had a career that stretches from being an award-winning comic (Perrier Award 1989) to a Sunday Times feature writer, as well as a broadcaster and columnist. He is the author of the best-selling book The Power of Difference, which brings together his own experiences and the latest research to explain why inclusion is more than just being nice to people, why unconscious bias training isn’t the fix we need and why listening to all individual voices, not assuming that different groups of people have a single homogenous viewpoint, is key.

He co-founded Diversity by Design in 2010 and is Number 2 on HR Magazine’s 2022 list of most original thinkers. As a consultant he works with companies to celebrate difference and create true inclusion. But he is a diversity dissident. He thinks it’s a remarkable irony that ‘diversity’ is too often used as a tool of conformity, enforced by the weaponizing of offence. Inclusion, he says, has been turned inside out and now seems to mean that “you have to think like this, speak like this and behave like this. And if you don’t, we’ll exclude you.”

This is an online event and FSU members will be sent a link separately so they can attend via Zoom – look out for the email, as this is going to be a great discussion! You can find out more about the event here.

We’re also delighted to have arranged a special offer on Simon’s book, The Power of Difference, for FSU Members. Use the discount code ‘FHR20’ to receive a 20% discount when you click here and order from Kogan Page Ltd. The discount is valid on the paperback, hardback, eBook or the paperback/eBook bundle.

Charity Commission to investigate mosque at centre of school Quran row following FSU intervention

Jamia Masjid Swafia, the Wakefield mosque at the centre of a row about a Quran being accidentally damaged at a local secondary school is now being investigated by the charities watchdog (Times). This is a significant regulatory intervention on behalf of free speech, freedom of expression and the separation of religion from civil affairs – and it’s thanks to the FSU.

Members may recall that last week we wrote to West Yorkshire Police asking them to remove the ‘non-crime hate incidents’ that had been recorded against the names of four boys at Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield after one of the boys, a 14 year-old who is on the autistic spectrum, brought a copy of the Quran into school and accidentally dropped it, causing minor damage (Mail, Times). In a completely disproportionate response, the police decided to treat this episode as a ‘hate incident’ and recorded it as such. You can read that letter here.

Last week we followed up with a letter to Helen Stephenson, the CEO of the Charity Commission, asking her to open an investigation into Jamia Masjid Swafia after video footage emerged of one of the boy’s mothers appearing there shortly after the episode, dressed in a Muslim headscarf, seemingly in an effort to protect her son, who had been receiving death threats. Our letter urging the Charity Commission to open an investigation into the mosque is available here.

Writing in The Times, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, described this meeting as “look[ing] more like a sharia law trial, inappropriately held at a mosque instead of a neutral setting”.

The FSU has reviewed the footage posted on social media and it’s pretty alarming.

While the boy’s mother sat on a panel, modestly bowing her head, the Imam warned that the Muslim community wouldn’t tolerate any disrespect shown to the Quran and if necessary would defend its honour with their lives. “When it comes to the honour of the Quran we will stand and we will defend the honour of the Quran no matter what it takes,” he said. “The slightest bit of disrespect [to the Quran] is not accepted and it is not going to be tolerated at any point, in any city, in any country by any Muslim and that’s the fact of the matter.” He continued:

The difficulty that we have in this incident is that these are not adults that have carried out this act. Had it been, for example, a teacher who had disrespected the holy Quran – had it been, let’s say, an adult that had thrown the holy Quran – then the matter would be different. We probably wouldn’t be sitting in the [mosque] right now, we’d probably be standing outside that school and voicing our concerns without any doubt whatsoever.

As we pointed out in our letter to the Charity Commission, the Jamia Masjid Swafia mosque is a registered charity and we think these remarks constitute a breach of one of the mosque’s charitable objects, namely, “promoting good community relations and cohesion between Muslims and non-Muslims”.

Responding to our letter, a Charity Commission spokeswoman confirmed to The Times that the organisation has “opened a regulatory compliance case to assess concerns raised with us about Jamia Masjid Swafia”. She added: “We are carefully considering the issues raised to determine our next steps.” If it believes there are grounds for further investigation, it could begin a statutory inquiry.

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities, and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship. But is this a genuine concern, or just an excuse to suppress dissenting points of view on issues like the Covid lockdowns, mRNA vaccines, the war in Ukraine, climate change, drag queen story hour and 15 minute cities? And even if the threat is real and the concern is genuine, how can we trust these agencies to accurately identify dis- and misinformation?

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistle-blower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response – the journalist Peter Hitchens and our General Secretary, who will be chairing the discussion.

Why not join us to discuss what lessons we should learn about how to counter the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex’ and defend the freedom to dissent?

Comedy Unleashed in Leeds – discounted tickets available to FSU members!

If you can get to Leeds on Friday 7th April, we are delighted to offer a special FSU members’ discount for a fabulous night of comedy with FSU Advisory Council member Andrew Doyle and others. Having consistently sold out shows in London for the past five years, Comedy Unleashed is bringing its refreshing brand of politically incorrect stand-up comedy to The HiFi Club in Leeds. For tickets, click here and enter the discount code ‘SAMIZDAT’.

Dr David Starkey on the King’s Coronation – book your tickets here!

FSU members keen on hearing Dr David Starkey’s thoughts about – among other things – the upcoming coronation of King Charles III, can enjoy free hospitality in central London on 4th April at a live event, compliments of the British-Hungarian Society. The Q&A following Dr Starkey’s talk will be moderated by our own Toby Young. This is an opportunity not to be missed. Dr Starkey is Britain’s pre-eminent historian of the monarchy, and no better authority exists to examine the richly evolving tapestry of meaning, ritual, and constitutional significance brought to the fore by the upcoming coronation of His Majesty the King – a spectacle not witnessed by the world for 70 years. However, places at the talk are limited and reserving a spot is essential, which you can do by clicking here.

Karen Sunderland’s fundraiser reaches target – trial will begin later this month!

Thanks to the generous support of our members and supporters, Karen Sunderland’s legal fundraiser has just reached its £20,000 stretch target!

Karen is suing her former employer after falling victim to ‘offence archaeology’. In 2018, when Karen was a Conservative candidate in the local elections, iNews dug up some tweets she’d posted in 2017 and managed to get her suspended by the party. The tweets reflected her sincere belief that aspects of Islamic doctrine are illiberal and unfair to women.

Four years later, when Karen was embarking on a new career, someone tipped off her employer about this episode and she was fired. Karen believes her comments were protected political speech – she was merely expressing her conservative beliefs – and her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory.

We funded the initial stages of litigation, including an inconclusive preliminary hearing on whether Karen’s beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010. The fact that the fundraiser has reached its stretch target is important because it will allow that matter, along with the rest of Karen’s claim, to be considered in a four-day trial starting on 28th March. She is being represented by Francis Hoar, one of England’s best barristers when it comes to freedom of speech cases and party-political matters.

Establishing that conservatism is a protected belief would bring balance to the law: while there is case law protecting the belief in democratic socialism there are no equivalent protections for its right-wing counterpart. If Karen succeeds in winning this argument, the judgement would protect employees with conservative views which, while wholly lawful, are often distasteful to HR officers.

In addition to arguing that her dismissal was either directly or indirectly because of her belief in conservatism, Karen’s claim makes another important legal argument, namely, that she was dismissed because of her belief in freedom of speech. A finding that freedom of speech is a protected belief would give legal protection to other employees who manifest that belief by speaking their minds and testing received wisdom.

You can read the heartening comments posted to the fundraising page by donors by clicking here.

In Conversation – Meghan Murphy

Earlier this month, Toby was joined by writer and journalist Meghan Murphy at an exclusive, members-only Online Speakeasy to discuss a wide range of topics including Meghan’s banishment from Twitter for saying that transwomen aren’t women, the case of anti-abortion campaigner Isabel Vaughan-Spruce who was arrested for standing silently in a street near an abortion clinic in Birmingham, and the free speech implications of gender self-id. The video is available in full on our YouTube channel – the link is here.

Weekly news round-up

10th March 2023

FSU writes to Charity Commission about mosque at centre of Wakefield Quran row

We’ve now followed up with a letter to Helen Stephenson, the CEO of the Charity Commission, asking her to open an investigation into Jamia Masjid Swafia, the Wakefield mosque where the 14 year-old boy’s mother appeared shortly after the episode, dressed in a Muslim headscarf, seemingly in an effort to protect her son, who had been receiving death threats. While she sat on a panel, modestly bowing her head, the Imam warned that the Muslim community wouldn’t tolerate any disrespect shown to the Quran, and if necessary would defend its honour with their lives.

“When it comes to the honour of the Quran we will stand and we will defend the honour of the Quran no matter what it takes,” he said. “The slightest bit of disrespect [to the Quran] is not accepted and it is not going to be tolerated at any point, in any city, in any country by any Muslim and that’s the fact of the matter.”

The Imam continued:

Let me make categorically clear and those who prayed Friday prayers here today will have heard my Friday sermon and my lecture too, that any Muslim in Wakefield, Halifax where I am from, Bradford, Dewsbury, the United Kingdom or outside the United Kingdom will never tolerate the disrespect of the holy Quran. Never. Why? Because we will sacrifice our lives for it. We will give anything in the honour of Allah and his messengers… So there’s no element of brushing this under the carpet. There’s no element of let it pass for a few days and then it die down [sic].

The Jamia Masjid Swafia mosque is a registered charity, and we think these remarks constitute a breach of one of the mosque’s charitable objects, namely, “promoting good community relations and cohesion between Muslims and non-Muslims”. We don’t believe the Imam was promoting “religious harmony” when he warned that Muslims in Wakefield and elsewhere wouldn’t tolerate any disrespect shown towards the Quran. Rather, his remarks – indeed, the entire spectacle, which had the appearance of a show trial – seemed designed to intimidate the non-Muslim community into observing Islamic blasphemy codes concerning the Quran.

You can read our letter urging the Charity Commission to open an investigation into the mosque here.

Big free speech victory as Christian street preacher overturns conviction for misgendering trans woman

A Christian street preacher who was reported to counter terrorism police after publicly misgendering a trans woman has this week successfully appealed his conviction for a public order offence in Leeds City Centre back in 2021 (Breitbart, Christian Post, Independent, Mail). Expertly advised by the FSU’s Legal Officer, Karolien Celie, Toby Young acted as an expert witness for the defence. We’re delighted that Mr McConnell’s conviction for ‘misgendering’ has now been overturned.

Writing in The Critic, Tim Dieppe of Christian Concern, which helped Mr McConnell with his appeal, offers a lucid summary of the event’s that culminated in his arrest while preaching in Leeds City Centre:

A transgender woman (i.e., a biological man dressed as a woman and identifying as a woman) asked a question about whether God accepts the LGBT community.

McConnell responded to the question referring to the questioner by saying: “So, this gentleman asked a question…”

Members of the crowd screamed at him: “She’s a woman!”

McConnell replied: “No, this is a man.” At which a woman in the crown shouted: “She’s just as much a woman as me!”

Interactions continued, with McConnell calmly preaching about Biblical sexual morality and continuing to refer to “this gentleman”, and sometimes referring to him as a “man in women’s clothes”.

At this point, a police officer turned up, and members of an increasingly aggressive crowd immediately started complaining that Mr McConnell had offended them (“You’ve got a baton, slap him around the f***ing arse and take him,” one person said, chattily). When the preacher attempted to explain himself, saying: “She asked me… he asked me what do I think…”, the officer cut him off and arrested him. Astonishingly, Mr McConnell was later convicted of “causing harassment, alarm or distress” at Leeds Magistrates’ Court, fined £620 and sentenced to a 12-month community order (Independent).

In its pre-sentence report, the Probation Service suggested that because Mr McConnell “is viewed to be persistently and illegally espousing an extreme point of view”, a probation officer had been “routinely liaising with [his] colleagues in the Joint Counter Terrorism Team” (Mail).

A remarkable claim, that. What is it, exactly, that the Probation Service regard as “extreme” about Mr McConnell’s “point of view”? The idea that people cannot change their biological sex? Surely not. Back in 2021, the judgement handed down in Maya Forstater’s landmark employment appeal tribunal ruled that gender critical beliefs of this kind, including the belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity, was a protected philosophical belief and, as such, “worthy of respect in a democratic society” (Times). Or perhaps the Probation Service thinks it’s “extreme” to believe in biblical accounts that fail to affirm transgenderism. Then again, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mrs Justice Eady, last year ruled that believing that men and women were created by God, including believing that transgenderism is sinful, is a protected belief under both the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

Speaking before the appeal verdict, Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which has done such a good job of representing Mr McConnell, said: “This case represents a disturbing trend in our society which is seeing members of the public and professionals being prosecuted and reported as potential terrorists for refusing to celebrate and approve LGBTQ ideology” (Mail).

Let’s hope victory in this appeal case marks the beginning of a legal fightback.

Online Speakeasy with Simon Fanshawe – register for tickets here!

Simon has had a career that stretches from being an award-winning comic (Perrier Award 1989) to a Sunday Times feature writer, as well as a broadcaster and columnist. He is the author of the best-selling book The Power of Difference, which brings together his own experiences and the latest research to explain why inclusion is more than just being nice to people, why unconscious bias training isn’t the fix we need and why listening to all individual voices, not assuming that different groups of people have a single homogenous viewpoint, is key. He was one of the co-founders of Stonewall, but resigned from the organisation in 2019 because he believes it was going about promoting diversity in the wrong way (Spiked).

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities, and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship. But is this a genuine concern, or just an excuse to suppress dissenting points of view on issues like the Covid lockdowns, mRNA vaccines, the war in Ukraine and climate change? And even if the threat is real and the concern is genuine, how can we trust state agencies to accurately identify dis- and misinformation?

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistle-blower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response – the journalist Peter Hitchens and our General Secretary, who will be chairing the discussion.

Why not join us to discuss what lessons we should learn about how to counter the mis/disinformation police and defend the freedom to dissent?

Help protect workplace freedom of speech – donate to Karen Sunderland’s fundraiser!

Karen Sunderland is suing her former employer after falling victim to ‘offence archaeology’. In 2018, when Karen was a Conservative candidate in the local elections, iNews dug up some tweets she’d posted in 2017 and managed to get her suspended by the party. The tweets reflected her sincere belief that aspects of Islamic doctrine are illiberal and unfair to women.

Four years later, when Karen was embarking on a new career, someone tipped off her employer about this episode and she was fired. Karen believes her comments were protected political speech, and that her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. Her claim makes two important legal arguments.

First, her dismissal was either directly or indirectly because of her belief in conservatism, a belief protected by the Equality Act 2010. Establishing that conservatism is a protected belief would bring balance to the law: while there is case law protecting democratic socialism there are no equivalent protections for its right-wing counterpart. If she succeeds in winning this argument, the judgement would protect employees with conservative views which, while wholly lawful, are often distasteful to HR officers.

Second, Karen argues that she was dismissed because of her belief in freedom of speech. In short, free-thinkers attract controversy, and always have – and employers who put rigid speech codes in place are adversely affecting employees who believe in free speech. A finding that freedom of speech is a protected belief would give legal protection to other employees who manifest that belief by speaking their minds and testing received wisdom.

Karen’s trial begins on 28th March. She is being represented by barrister Francis Hoar, acting on a direct access basis. Francis is one of England’s best barristers when it comes to freedom of speech cases and party-political matters: in 2021 he published In Protection of Freedom of Speech, with a Foreword by Lord Sumption.

You can donate to Karen’s fundraiser here.

FSU member Julie Burchill has new play on in Brighton – book your tickets here!

Journalist and FSU member Julie Burchill has a new play out. Awful People was written with her ex-partner, Daniel Raven, and will be playing at the Latest Music Bar in Brighton from 22-25 May. Here’s the synopsis: “When a pair of middle-aged, middle-class ex-spouses get back together to write a rap musical, the stage is set for eye-watering embarrassment and folly. As they waylay the less privileged young people who cross their path – their Ukrainian nanny/cleaner (‘home curator’) and a young black Deliveroo man – this clash of cultures can only end in calamity.” Sounds triggering. Still, if you’re in the area and feel like risking a night of ~~high culture~~ psychological trauma, tickets are available here. You can read Julie’s latest article for the Spectator, ‘Woke culture is strangling comedy’, here.

Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock and Martina Navratilova launch The Lesbian Project!

Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, and Martina Navratilova have this week launched The Lesbian Project – a dynamic not-for-profit organisation, dedicated to the understanding and enhancement of lesbian lives in the UK.

According to the Telegraph, “The idea that lesbians still need some kind of protective body may seem almost laughably anachronistic, not least since the 2013 Same-Sex-Couples Marriage Act.” But as Kathleen Stock explains, the project isn’t necessarily battling homophobia as much as preventing lesbians from being overlooked in favour of new, more “fashionable” sexualities: “We’ve got a report coming out that will show millions of pounds are going into LGBT but increasingly that funding is going to trans projects, while for lesbian-only projects it’s vanishingly rare,” Stock says.

The Lesbian Project’s Advisory Board includes: MP for Edinburgh South West and member of the FSU’s Scottish Advisory Council, Joanna Cherry, KC; the barrister Lucy Masoud; feminist human rights advocate and Member of the Austrian Parliament, Faika El-Nagashi; artist and campaigner Nicole Jones; and Tara Kaufmann, who works in health policy. For more information about The Lesbian Project, click here.

Antisemitism activists crowdfund to fight lawsuit after Twitter row – show your support here!

Edward Cantor and James Mendelsohn have established a crowdfunding campaign to raise money to fight a lawsuit brought following a social media spat two years ago.

James Wilson, a qualified solicitor, is suing the antisemitism campaigners after a Twitter dispute over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The defendants shared a Facebook post referencing Mr Wilson, which he says amounts to libel, harassment, breach of data protection and invasion of privacy.

Mr Wilson also sued the late antisemitism campaigner Dr Peter Newbon, who had been part of the same Twitter conversation that he’s complaining about in the case of Mr Cantor and Mr Mendelsohn. After the Jewish academic’s sudden death last year (Mail), Mr Wilson reached a financial settlement with his widow.

Last month, Mr Cantor and Mr Mendelsohn applied to the High Court for the case to be struck out or for summary judgement in their favour to avoid the huge costs of going to a full trial. However, the Master ruled that the case should proceed to trial, aside from the harassment claim against Mr Cantor. In the crowdfunding description, Mr Cantor suggests that “if [Mr] Wilson’s claim is not defeated, he and others will be emboldened to target campaigners against antisemitism with legal action”.

To learn more about the case and show your support, click here.

NHS staff demand organisation reinstates the word ‘woman’ on its webpages

Some 1,200 doctors, nurses and health practitioners have written to NHS bosses and all four chief nursing officers demanding the organisation reinstate the word ‘woman’ in cancer and pregnancy webpages (Epoch Times, Express, Mail, Scottish Daily Express, Telegraph).

At least 19 women’s health pages on the NHS website fail to mention women either at all or in addition to non-gendered language, including in the guidance on ovarian and uterus cancer, menopause, childbirth and heavy periods.

The Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, a group of NHS staff, organised the letter after noticing that many NHS.UK webpages had begun shifting to gender-neutral language since 2021, using terms such as “you”, “people” or “person”.

In their letter, the clinicians provide examples of the type of linguistic erasure in question.

Official NHS guidance for ovarian cancer, for instance, previously began by saying it “is one of the most common types of cancer in women”. Now, this sentence has vanished along with any mention of women.

The NHS overview page on miscarriages previously said: “For most women, a miscarriage is a one-off event, and they go on to have a successful pregnancy in future.” Following the website’s update, the page simply refers to most “people”, not most “women”.

Elsewhere, information about womb cancer used to begin with reference to “the female reproductive system” before going on to note that this type of cancer is “more common in women who have been through the menopause”. Again, the reformulated version contains no reference to females or women.

According to the clinicians’ letter, “NHS messaging” of this kind “shows a lack of concern for women”. The letter continues: “Removal of sex-based language is discriminatory and could leave the NHS open to legal challenge… We call for the reinstatement of sex-based, respectful communication that meets the healthcare needs of women. Specifically, the NHS must use women’s words for women’s bodies and women’s health problems.”

Another children’s book series sanitised without author’s permission

Last week, it emerged that over a dozen books by one of the world’s most successful children’s authors, RL Stine, have had references to mental health, weight, gender and ethnicity removed or changed to bring them into line with ‘progressive’ sensibilities (Times).

At the time, some outlets assumed that it was Mr Stine who was responsible for the revisions. “Edits have been made by author RL Stine to his original works,” Sky News claimed – not unreasonably, it has to be said, given that they are, er, his books. However, it now transpires that the changes in question were made without the author’s knowledge or permission (Mail, New York Post, Times).

Mr Stine’s ‘Goosebumps’ books have sold more than 300 million copies worldwide and are the second-highest selling children’s series behind JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series. The American author says his publisher, Scholastic, made the changes to his recently re-released eBooks without reviewing them with him. “I’ve never changed a word in Goosebumps,” he tweeted. “Any changes were never shown to me.”

Scholastic, meanwhile, says the revisions in question relate to “imagery” that needed to be changed to “keep the language current” and avoid “negatively impacting a young person’s view of themselves”.

The children’s horror novels now include more than 100 edits. A character once described as “plump” is now “cheerful”. Descriptions of characters who resemble “bowling balls” or who have “squirrel cheeks” are deleted entirely. Someone Mr Stine wanted us to understand as “crazy” is now simply “silly”.

In one novel, a character wearing a Halloween costume, dressed as “a dark and stormy night”, no longer wears black face paint. Similarly, in Bride of the Living Dummy, released in 1998, a character dressed as a clown has the black rings painted around his eyes and mouth changed to red.

Elsewhere, a character described as having “at least six chins” is now “at least six feet six”.

In the 1997 edition of I Live in Your Basement!, a monster issued orders to the protagonist. “Did he really expect me to be his slave – for ever?”, which has been changed to “Did he really expect me to do this – for ever?”

The book Don’t Go to Sleep! depicts a boy who dismisses Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina as “girl’s stuff”. Now, he insists it’s “not interesting”. (Sounds like a fun character.)

In early books in a series of Slappy novels – the ventriloquist’s dummy, who comes to life and is the villain of the series – describe him as wanting to subjugate humans as his “slaves”, but in later stories they are called “servants”.

The edits, part of a 2018 eBook re-release, are the latest example of novels being changed to make them less ‘offensive’. Last month, it emerged that Roald Dahl’s stories had been subjected to hundreds of changes, including no longer describing Augustus Gloop as fat or Mrs Twit as fearfully ugly (Telegraph).

Will this attempt to sanitise children’s literature never end? If you have any of Mr Stine’s books as originally written – in all their ‘offensive’ glory – hang on to them. They could be worth something in a few years.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

Communications Officer.

Weekly news round-up

3rd March 2023

FSU calls on West Yorkshire Police to wipe records of ‘Quran-gate’ pupils

As reported in the Times, the Free Speech Union is calling on the police to delete the ‘non-crime hate incidents’ from the records of four pupils at a school in West Yorkshire who were suspended over minor, accidental damage caused to a copy of the Quran.

The teenagers in question were suspended from Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield last week for allegedly ‘desecrating’ a holy book (Express, Mail, Spectator, Spiked). Despite the abolition of blasphemy laws in England and Wales in 2008, a local Labour councillor, Usman Ali, decided it would be a good idea to use that word in an already febrile local atmosphere to describe what these children had done. “We all need to work together to make sure this terrible provocation does not set back community relations for years to come,” he said in his public statement (Spectator). An unfortunate choice of words, that. Back in 2021, a teacher at another secondary school, Batley Grammar, was forced into hiding in fear of his life for the – apparently similar – ‘provocation’ of showing cartoons of Muhammad during a lesson about free speech and blasphemy (Guardian). Although perhaps Mr Ali isn’t aware of that – Batley is, after all, fully nine miles distant from Kettlethorpe.

The suspensions were put in place after a student (who happens to be autistic) reportedly brought a copy of the Quran into school “on a dare” having lost a game of Call of Duty with his mates (Spiked). That might not make a lot of sense from an adult’s perspective, but then as Ben Sixsmith said, “kids make odd decisions” (Critic). Out on the school tennis court, he and his friends read aloud from it then walked back inside the school, where another kid knocked it out of their hands and on to the floor. Apparently, it sustained a small tear and a smudged page.

For this, the four students were suspended. The police were then called in. At a meeting with ‘community leaders’ at a local Mosque last Friday, Chief Inspector Andy Thornton – who is leading the investigation into this dreadful crime – said the students’ treatment of the book has been recorded as a ‘non-crime hate incident’ (or NCHI).

In our letter to Inspector Thornton, we have asked for assurance that the boys at the centre of the story have not had NCHIs recorded against their names – can it really be true? – and, if they have, to remove them immediately.

Last July, the professional body for the police in England and Wales, the College of Policing (CoP), updated its guidance on the recording of NCHIs following the judgement in the case of Miller v The College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926. According to the CoP, “Not all incidents reported need to be recorded. A record should only be made where it meets the threshold” set out in the National Standard for Incident Recording Counting Rules (NSIR). Those rules define a Hate Incident as: “Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

Given that the school has said there was no “malicious intent” on the part of the four children involved (BBC), the recording of a non-crime hate incident is prima facie inconsistent with the definition contained in the NSIR, as there was no motivation of prejudice or hate (although it may have been perceived as such, having been described in such an inflammatory way by Usman Ali). Unlike actual crimes, NCHIs recorded against children’s names remain on their records when they reach adulthood.

As the FSU’s General Secretary, Toby Young, wrote in the letter to Inspector Thornton: “We are hard pressed to imagine a sequence of events more likely to chill public debate and freedom of expression than recording this episode as a ‘hate incident’ and attaching that data to the children’s records, in spite of the absence of any malicious intent.”

A source close to the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, told the Times: “These are very concerning reports. The Home Secretary is clear that the police response should always be proportionate and consider the welfare of young children as a priority over any perceived insults.”

You can read our letter in full here.

Karen Sunderland’s fundraiser – show your support and help protect freedom of speech in the workplace!

Four years later, when Karen was embarking on a new career, someone tipped off her employer about this episode and she was fired. Karen believes her comments were protected political speech and her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. Her claim makes two important legal arguments.

First, her dismissal was either directly or indirectly due to her belief in conservatism, a belief that should be protected by the Equality Act 2010. Establishing that conservatism is a protected belief would bring balance to the law: there is case law that designated ‘democratic socialism’ a protected belief, but no equivalent protection for its right-wing counterpart. If she succeeds in winning this argument, the judgement would protect employees with conservative views which, while wholly lawful, are often thought to be offensive to HR officers.

Second, Karen argues that she was dismissed because of her belief in freedom of speech. In short, free-thinkers attract controversy and always have – and employers who put rigid speech codes in place are disproportionately affecting those who believe in free speech. A finding that freedom of speech is a protected belief would give legal protection to other employees who manifest that belief by speaking their minds and testing received wisdom.

You can donate to Karen’s fundraiser here.

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities, and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship – only this week, for instance, the global unelected health agency, the World Health Organisation, announced it will move forward with its plans to make amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), which would give it new far-reaching powers to counter ‘dis-’ and ‘misinformation’ (Reclaim the Net).

But is this a genuine concern, or just an excuse to suppress dissenting points of view on issues like the Covid lockdowns, mRNA vaccines, the war in Ukraine and climate change? And even if the threat is real and the concern is genuine, how can we trust state agencies to accurately identify dis- and misinformation?

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistle-blower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response, the journalist Peter Hitchens and FSU General Secretary Toby Young.

Join us in-person or online to discuss what lessons we should learn about how to counter the mis/disinformation police and defend the freedom to dissent. In-person tickets are sold out, but you can join the waiting list to be notified if a place becomes available. Alternatively, join us on Zoom by registering here.

The Online Safety Bill and the future of Signal in the UK

Encrypted messaging app Signal has joined WhatsApp in threatening to leave the UK if the controversial and much-delayed Online Safety Bill forces it to break users’ privacy — the legislation paves the way for ‘client-side scanning’, an algorithmic process in which firms scan all private messages before encrypting them to ensure they contain nothing illegal (Evening Standard, Guardian, Telegraph, Times).

Signal, which has around 40 million active users worldwide, would “absolutely, 100% walk” if the bill goes ahead in its current form, according to company president Meredith Whittaker.

When asked if the bill would jeopardise Signal’s ability to keep its users safe, Ms Whittaker told the BBC: “It could, and we would absolutely 100% walk rather than ever undermine the trust that people place in us to provide a truly private means of communication. Encryption is either protecting everyone or it is broken for everyone.”

In August 2022, the CEO of rival service WhatsApp, Will Cathcart, made similar comments, noting that “if we had to lower security for the world to accommodate a [regulatory] requirement in one country, as a business decision, that would be very foolish for us” (BBC).

Both Signal and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption, which means only the sender and receiver of a message can read its contents.

Ms Whittaker and Mr Cathcart were referring to a specific clause in the Online Safety Bill that requires tech firms to make their “best endeavours” to deploy new technology to identify and remove child sexual abuse and exploitation content if existing technology isn’t suitable for that purpose on their respective platforms (Sky News).

The Bill did already contain a proposal to give Ofcom – the regulator tasked with overseeing implementation of the bill – the power to require deployment of existing “accredited technology” for that purpose. Under the revised version of the legislation, however, Clause 110 enables Ofcom to demand that tech firms deploy or develop new technology to help find abuse material and stop its spread (Guardian).

WhatsApp and Signal are worried that Ofcom may well ask online services providers to pursue ‘client-side scanning’, a controversial surveillance method which allows providers of end-to-end encrypted communication services to automatically scan private chats, messages, texts, images, videos and speech sent from that ‘client’s’ phone for suspicious content which could then automatically be reported to the police (Evening Standard).

The fundamental problem with client-side scanning for companies like Signal and WhatsApp is that it undermines their unique selling point, namely, secure, end-to-end encryption.

Critics say the technology could be subject to “scope creep” once it’s installed on phones and computers, so it isn’t just used to search for illegal content (Computer Weekly). That’s obviously a worrying possibility, not least because freedom of expression and privacy are mutually reinforcing rights.

As Ms Whittaker says: “Encryption is either protecting everyone or it is broken for everyone.”

The case for the Government’s amendment is that it will protect children. According to the National Crime Agency, there are between 550,000 and 850,000 people in the UK who pose a sexual risk to children, and it’s not difficult to understand why secure, end-to-end encryption might prove useful to those wishing to circulate depraved images online. Last year, the then Home Secretary Priti Patel argued that “things like end-to-end encryption significantly reduce the ability for platforms to detect child sexual abuse” (Telegraph).

But is Clause 110 a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Back in 2021, Apple abandoned attempts to introduce its own client-side scanning software after 14 top computer scientists, including encryption pioneers Ron Rivest and Whit Diffie, found its plans were unworkable, open to abuse, and threatened internet security (Tech Times). Their paper Bugs in our pockets: the risks of client-side scanning, identified 15 ways that states, malicious actors, and even targeted child abusers, could exploit the technology to cause harm to others (Computer Weekly). Even the UK’s own Information Commissioner’s Office has said that encrypting communications actually strengthens online safety for children by reducing their exposure to threats such as blackmail (Guardian).

Online speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Our next members-only Online Speakeasy is ‘Defeating Twitter Bans and Defending Free Speech’, featuring FSU General Secretary Toby Young in conversation with Meghan Murphy, the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. Join us on Zoom at 7.30pm on Wednesday 8th March for this online Speakeasy. FSU members can register for the event here. If you’re not yet a member, but would like to attend, you can join here.

In 2019, Meghan spoke about gender identity in the Scottish Parliament, urging legislators not to make the same mistakes as Canada and the US, where laws and policies around trans-identifying people were passed without proper consideration of how they might impact society – and women and girls in particular. So it will be fascinating to get Meghan’s take on Scotland’s Gender Recognition (Scotland) Reform Bill, which recently passed into law, abolishing the requirement for people to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before gaining a so-called gender-recognition certificate, and reducing the time someone has to live in their acquired gender from two years to three months.

Does she agree with UCL’s Head of Social Research, Professor Alice Sullivan, for instance, that (gender) critical voices were ignored during the development and subsequent Parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation (Times)? Was she surprised when UN special rapporteur Reem Alsalem was given the brush off by the ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon after raising concerns that this “unfair, rushed, vague and contradictory legislation” could open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process (Times)? And what are her thoughts on the Scottish Prison Service’s policy (now temporarily halted) of housing violent male rapists who self-identify as female in women’s jails alongside a population of female offenders known to contain some of the most vulnerable people in society, often with complex histories of trauma, including sexual and domestic abuse (Telegraph, Times)?

You can find Meghan on Twitter here and Substack here. To whet your appetite for the FSU’s Speakeasy, you can listen to Meghan’s appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience here and her TRIGGERnometry appearance here.

Roald Dahl ebooks automatically updated to include ‘progressive’ censorship

In an unsettlingly dystopian move, readers who bought electronic versions of Roald Dahl’s works prior to Puffin Books making hundreds of ‘progressive’ revisions to the classic tales have had their eBooks updated automatically, and without their consent (Breitbart, Reclaim the Net, Times).

Owners of Roald Dahl eBooks have discovered that the online versions have been updated to contain the newly censored text, with hundreds of changes to language related to weight, mental health, violence, colonial-era literature, gender and race.

The news is all the more disappointing given that late last week Penguin Random House (of which Puffin is an imprint) appeared to back down over the changes, agreeing to publish the ‘original’ books alongside the newly revised versions.

However, it now seems clear that the company’s revised plan will only apply to ‘hard’ rather than ‘digital’ copies.

Speaking to The Times, Dahl’s biographer Matthew Dennison accused the publisher of “strong-arming readers into accepting a new orthodoxy in which Dahl himself has played no part”.

Dennison, who wrote the Dahl biography Teller of the Unexpected, added: “For me there’s an irony to the current automatic updating of Dahl’s eBooks. Time and again, in his writing for adults as well as children, Dahl championed the bullied against the bullies. Yet here we have a kind of cultural assertiveness that strong-arms readers into accepting without alternative – though, happily, not without demur – a new orthodoxy in which Dahl himself has played no part.”

Free Speech event for University of Cambridge Students – get involved here!

If you are a student at the University of Cambridge, or know someone who is, the Living Freedom salon returns to campus on 16th March at Sidney Sussex College. The Salon is supported by the Free Speech Champions and will explore the historic roots and contemporary realities of freedom of conscience. Full details of the talks and speakers can be found here. This event is open only to Cambridge students.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

Communications Officer

Weekly news round-up

23rd February 2023

Online Speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Our next members-only Online Speakeasy is ‘Defeating Twitter Bans and Defending Free Speech’, featuring Toby Young in conversation with Meghan Murphy. Join us on Zoom at 7.30pm on Wednesday 8th March for this online Speakeasy with Canadian journalist, writer and podcaster Meghan Murphy – the link to register for this members-only event is here.

Meghan is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. She has spoken up about the issue of gender identity legislation and women’s rights, including in the Canadian senate and the Scottish Parliament, and has had to endure repeated threats of death, rape, violence and censorship (Telegraph). Meghan was permanently banned from Twitter in 2018 for saying that men are not women. Thankfully, the ban was lifted by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, some four years later, in November 2022.

The focus of her work for many years was on cultural analysis from a feminist and socialist perspective, though in a recent interview with Spiked she admitted that one of the things she gained from being banned from Twitter was “connecting with people who had been advocating for free speech for a long time” and she has since switched her focus to the fight for free speech. “You would hope people would understand why censorship and controlling speech for political purposes are dangerous,” she says, “but so many people don’t seem to get it.”

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship – only last week, for instance, the Czech government announced it is considering sweeping new disinformation laws to block sites that “threaten national security” and prosecute those deemed to be “spreading misinformation” (Reclaim the Net).

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistle-blower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response, the journalist Peter Hitchens and FSU General Secretary Toby Young.

Roald Dahl’s books brought into line with ‘progressive’ sensibilities

Puffin Books has made hundreds of changes to the latest editions of Roald Dahl’s books (Bookseller, Spectator, Telegraph, Telegraph, Times). Working in partnership with Inclusive Minds – an organisation that employs so-called sensitivity readers to help organisations implement diversity, equality and inclusion policies – the publisher has, as it puts it, “brought [the texts] up to date” (Telegraph).

“Words matter,” begins the discreet notice, which sits at the bottom of the copyright page of Puffin’s latest editions of Roald Dahl’s books. “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”

A sensitivity reader with ‘lived experience’ of George Orwell’s oeuvre might well advise Puffin to rephrase that notice: all words are equal, but some words are more equal than others. In Dahl’s case, for instance, Puffin and its subcontracted sensitivity readers took the view that far too many of his lexical choices were outdated, harmful, and therefore replaceable. Presumably, that’s why they felt intensely relaxed about granting themselves licence to edit this – eugh! – dead white male’s prose, chopping, tweaking, altering and even adding entirely new sections where necessary to bring his books into line with ‘progressive’ sensibilities.

Language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender, and race has been cut and rewritten. The Cloud-Men in James and the Giant Peach are now the Cloud-People. The Oompa-Loompas in Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory have also transitioned from “small men” into “small people”. Fantastic Mr Fox’s Small Foxes are now female. In Matilda, a mention of male, pale and stale Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane Austen added. And so on and so, didactically, forth.

It’s Roald Dahl, but only now with the underlying philosophical worldview of a prim and earnest twentysomething Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer in the NHS. And on occasion, it would seem, similar levels of literary talent. In Roald Dahl’s The Witches, for example, the following passage:

“Don’t be foolish,” my grandmother said. “You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens.”

Becomes:

“Don’t be foolish,” my grandmother said. “Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

The best you can say about whoever wrote that passage is that they’d probably have done very well if they’d taken up some other line of employment.

Elsewhere in the book, Dahl’s story and plotline is recruited into the cause of increasing the number of women in STEM careers. The following passage:

Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman.

Becomes:

Even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business.

It’s the adjective ‘top’ that takes us to the heart of what’s really going on here. Unnecessary and disruptive from the point of view of prosody, it is nevertheless critical to Puffin’s proselytising mission. So there it stands, surrounded by the rubble of Dahl’s literary style like some grim, brutalist monument to Orwellian Newspeak.

In Fantastic Mr Fox a description of two tractors as “machines” that were “both black”, has also been cut. In Dahl’s new world, it seems, describing a tractor as “black” is racist.

Alexandra Strick, a co-founder of Inclusive Minds, said her organisation “aims to ensure authentic representation, by working closely with the book world and with those who have lived experience of any facet of diversity”. When it comes to the production of “authentic” revisions for something as vast as Dahl’s back catalogue, she explained, the company is able to call upon a team of “Inclusion Ambassadors” with a wide variety of “lived experience”. Lived experience of tractors?

Puffin has since defended its work with Inclusive Minds, insisting that it has a “significant responsibility” to protect young readers and that the changes are “minimal” (Telegraph).

But are the changes minimal?

In linguistics a distinction is often made between three different roles available for the production of speech: the principal, whose position the talk is meant to represent, the author, who does the scripting, and the animator, who says the words. It’s obvious even from the few examples cited above that Puffin is at times positioning itself as the invisible author behind Dahl’s prose. In the parlance of the mafia, he’s being repositioned as the front man for Puffin’s psychological protection racket. Some people might feel that that’s not a “minimal” change at all, but actually a substantial infringement of an author’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

Sir Salman Rushdie led the backlash against what he described as “absurd censorship” at the hands of Puffin’s “bowdlerising sensitivity police” (Express, Telegraph). Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also condemned the publisher’s actions. Asked about the changes, Mr Sunak’s official spokesman said: “It is important that works of literature, works of fiction, are preserved and not airbrushed.” (Times).

Meanwhile, Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of literature and human rights organisation PEN America, said she was “alarmed” at the changes, which “could represent a dangerous new weapon”. Ms Nossel added: “Literature is meant to be surprising and provocative. That’s part of its potency. By setting out to remove any reference that might cause offense you dilute the power of storytelling.”

The Queen Consort appears to agree, having taken what is being interpreted as a “subtle dig” at Puffin (Express, Guardian). Speaking at a Clarence House reception to mark the second anniversary of her online book club, she told assembled authors: “Please remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.” Looking up from her notes with a mischievous smile, she added: “Enough said.” (Mail, Telegraph). Her comments were greeted by laughter and cheers of “hear, hear”. Hear, hear.

Karen Sunderland’s fundraiser – show your support and help protect freedom of speech in the workplace

Four years later, when Karen was embarking on a new career, someone tipped off her employer about this episode and she was fired. Karen believes her comments were protected political speech and her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. Her claim makes two important legal arguments.

First, her dismissal was either directly or indirectly because of her belief in conservatism, a belief that should be protected by the Equality Act 2010. Establishing that conservatism is a protected belief would bring balance to the law: there is case law protecting democratic socialism, but no equivalent protections for its right-wing counterpart. If she succeeds in winning this argument, the judgement would protect employees with conservative views which, while wholly lawful, are often thought to be offensive to HR officers.

You can donate to Karen’s fundraiser here.

Foreign Office funding group that seeks to demonetise conservative news publishers

The Government is contributing to a widespread international attack on free speech by funding a UK-based organisation that works to disrupt online advertising revenues for many right-of-centre publications (Daily Sceptic, Epoch Times, Reclaim the Net, Washington Examiner). Taxpayers’ money is being funnelled through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to an outfit called the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which compiles a “dynamic exclusion list” – or ‘blocklist’ – of mostly conservative publications and then feeds that list to advertisers with the aim of defunding and shutting down lawful, right-of centre speech.

The rise of “disinformation trackers” like the GDI marks the opening of a new front in the battle for online free speech. Brands looking to expand their digital footprint by promoting products online through multiple websites and platforms are increasingly turning to such organisations for information on how to manage reputational risk, which, in turn, has granted them considerable power to infringe upon the free speech rights of conservative journalists.

Publications included on the GDI’s blacklist in the US include the American Spectator, Breitbart, Reason, American Conservative and the New York Post (i.e., the only mainstream newspaper in the US to publicise the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 US presidential election). The list’s aim is to discredit conservative news organisations, reduce their ad revenue and ultimately shut them down.

Apart from the support of the British taxpayer, the GDI has received funds from the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and a group of wealthy foundations including the left-wing Knight Foundation.

One of the reasons the GDI poses such a threat to free speech is that its definition of ‘disinformation’ is unusually capacious. It doesn’t just mean information that’s false and disseminated by people who know it’s false and have malevolent intentions. The GDI has broadened its definition to include what it calls “adversarial narratives… which create a risk of harm by undermining trust in science or targeting at-risk individuals or institutions”.

So, for instance, if a conservative publication like Breitbart decides to use the term ‘illegal alien’ in its crime reporting – rather than the technically correct term ‘undocumented immigrant’ – the GDI classifies that as disinformation. Does that make Breitbart’s reporting inaccurate? Of course not. As the GDI’s Executive Director, Danny Rogers, cheerfully concedes, “each individual story would likely fact check to be technically correct, in that the crime did happen and the alleged perpetrator was likely an undocumented immigrant”. The problem, he says, is that such phrases are integral to an “adversarial narrative” that poses a “risk of harm to vulnerable populations”.

However, a fightback is now underway in the US. This week, the GDI lost the NED’s financial support over its role in demonetising conservative news outlets. According to Damon Wilson, CEO of NED, his organisation had only recently been made aware that the GDI was funded by a different donor that focused on specific US media outlets. That mattered, he said, because “as set forth in our Articles of Incorporation and the NED Act, our mandate is to work around the world and not in the United States. We have strict policies and practices in place so that NED and the work we fund remains internationally focused, ensuring the endowment does not become involved in domestic politics.”

NED’s decision to defund GDI is a significant victory for free speech because NED is funded by the State Department. Financial documents show that NED has received over $300 million from the US Government since 2021. According to Breitbart, Republican Senator Elise Stefanik was instrumental in ensuring that GDI would no longer receive financial support from NED. Stefanik, an NED board member, has been concerned about the targeting of conservative voices and media, especially GDI seeking to demonetise them.

It’s good to see US politicians waking up to the threat to free speech posed by the nascent anti-disinformation industry. The FSU is now working with friends and supporters across both Houses of Parliament to persuade the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office to stop its funding of the GDI.

Parliamentary petition seeks to clarify that “sex means sex” in the Equality Act — sign now!

Human-rights campaign group Sex Matters is running an official petition asking the Government to make clear that the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 does indeed mean sex – male and female. The organisation, which campaigns for sex-based women’s rights, needs another 18,000 signatures to reach the 100,000 mark that means it will be put forward for a parliamentary debate.

When the Gender Recognition Act came into force in 2004, lawmakers recognised that it was an extraordinary piece of legislation, and that the implications of section 9, which changes a person’s legally recognised sex “for all purposes”, were unclear. And so they put in a safety clause (section 23) to give future governments the power to sort out any problems later.

Sex Matters is calling on the Government to use this clause to modify the operation of the Equality Act 2010 to put it beyond doubt that the terms “sex”, “male”, “female”, “man” and “woman”, for the purpose of sex discrimination laws, mean biological sex and not “sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate”.

As will be obvious to anyone who cares about free speech, so-called “gender-critical” opinions – that sex in humans is binary and immutable, and that recognising this fact sometimes matters – are among the most censored in modern Britain (Spectator, Spiked, Telegraph, Times Higher). Clarifying the law isn’t a panacea, but it is the first step to reclaiming the right to speak freely about the reality of sex in the public square.

To find out more about the petition, visit Sex Matters’ website here. To sign (you must be a UK resident), visit the parliamentary petitions website here.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

Communications Officer

Weekly news round-up

17th February 2023

Online speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Our next members-only Online Speakeasy is ‘Defeating Twitter Bans and Defending Free Speech’, featuring FSU General Secretary Toby Young in conversation with Meghan Murphy, the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. Join us on Zoom at 7.30pm on Wednesday 8th March for this online Speakeasy with Canadian journalist and writer, Meghan Murphy. FSU members can register for the event here. If you’re not yet a member, but would like to attend, you can join us here.

It is of course de rigueur these days for any self-respecting, high-profile champion of women’s sex-based rights to be in receipt of death, rape and bodily mutilation threats from trans rights activists, and Meghan has certainly been keeping up appearances in that regard — indeed, at one point the #BeKind brigade’s campaign of harassment and intimidation became so histrionic that she required police escorts to travel between public engagements in her hometown of Vancouver (Telegraph). Meghan was also permanently banned from Twitter in 2018 for saying that transwomen are not women (Spiked). Thankfully, that ban was lifted by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, in November 2022.

In 2019, Meghan spoke about gender identity in the Scottish Parliament, urging legislators not to make the same mistakes as Canada and the US, where laws and policies around trans-identifying people were passed without proper consideration of how they might impact society – and women and girls in particular. So it will certainly be fascinating to get Meghan’s take on Scotland’s Gender Recognition (Scotland) Reform Bill, which recently passed into law, abolishing the requirement for people to have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before gaining a so-called gender-recognition certificate, and reducing the time someone has to live in their acquired gender from two years to three months.

Does she agree with UCL’s Head of Social Research, Professor Alice Sullivan, for instance, that (gender) critical voices were ignored during the development and subsequent Parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation (Times)? Was she surprised when UN special rapporteur Reem Alsalem was given the brush off by the ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon after raising concerns that this “unfair, rushed, vague and contradictory legislation” could open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process (Times)? And what are her thoughts on the Scottish Prison Service’s policy (now temporarily halted) of housing violent, self-identifying transgender female rapists in women’s jails alongside a population of female offenders known to contain some of the most vulnerable people in society, often with complex histories of trauma, including sexual and domestic abuse (Telegraph, Times)?

You can find Meghan on Twitter here and Substack here. To whet your appetite for the FSU’s Speakeasy, you can listen to Meghan’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience here and her TRIGGERnometry appearance here.

Dis-/misinformation and the freedom to dissent – book your tickets here!

So-called dis- and misinformation have been singled out by many governments, institutions, charities and commercial businesses as threats to democracy that require widespread censorship – only this week, for instance, the Czech government announced it is considering sweeping new disinformation laws to block sites that “threaten national security” and prosecute those deemed to be “spreading misinformation” (Reclaim the Net).

Thanks to Elon Musk’s Twitter Files, for instance, we now know that the criminalisation or suppression of ‘fake news’ is often little more than an excuse for Big Tech and the US government to collude in silencing those with lawful yet politically inconvenient opinions. Closer to home, evidence has recently emerged of the UK Government monitoring people who questioned the wisdom of the Covid-19 lockdown, including journalists, scientists, and politicians. Ministry of Truth, a recent report by Big Brother Watch revealed that at least three government units — the Counter Disinformation Unit, the Rapid Response Unit and the army’s 77th Brigade — were deployed to track the social media activities of British citizens, passing on details of social media posts they regarded as problematic so their employers in Whitehall could then report them to social media companies using their ‘trusted flagger’ status in an effort to get those posts removed and their authors banned (Mail, Spectator, Telegraph).

The FSU is bringing together a panel of experts to discuss these issues, including the Director of Big Brother Watch, Silkie Carlo, writer and broadcaster Timandra Harkness, and two people identified by a 77th Brigade whistle-blower as having been flagged for disseminating ‘misinformation’ about the Government’s pandemic response, the journalist Peter Hitchens and FSU General Secretary Toby Young.

Join us in-person or online to discuss what lessons we should learn about how to counter the mis/disinformation police and defend the freedom to dissent. The link to register for tickets is here.

New poll reveals “hostility” towards firms forcing staff to declare pronouns

According to a poll commissioned by think tank Policy Exchange, firms pursuing ‘woke’ policies are “disliked” by the “majority of workers” (Sun), “inciting a hostile public” (Telegraph) and – particularly if you prefer your news to evoke the florid prose style of the Old Testament – “risking the wrath of Brits” (Mail).

The company Polling People surveyed 1,169 people earlier this month, and the results were weighted to represent the wider population. One of the stand-out findings is that 58% of people say they believe companies should not force employees to declare their gender pronouns, with 45% disagreeing “completely” and an additional 13% disagreeing “somewhat”. Commenting on the findings, Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at Kent University, who carried out the polling, said a growing number of companies are now “adrift” from the wider public by “lecturing them about political issues and being seen to stifle their free speech and expression” (Telegraph).

At first glance, an overall percentage figure of 58% might seem a little low to support that sort of fighting talk. Yet the dataset for this survey question contained a large proportion of respondents (26%) who either “didn’t know” or – more intriguingly – “wouldn’t say” what their view was. As a result, the 58% figure needs to be understood in light of the fact that just 16% of respondents agreed that companies should be able to compel this behaviour, with 7% “completely” agreeing, and 9% “somewhat” agreeing.

Contextualising this finding for the Telegraph, Camilla Turner was quick to point out that gender pronouns are on the rise. “Britain’s biggest employers are increasingly asking staff to use pronouns to reflect their gender identity, with the City making particular efforts to shake off its ‘pale, male and stale’ image,” she wrote. That’s certainly true, although as the FSU’s ever expanding case files make clear, it’s quickly becoming a point of contention across many other, small and medium sized organisations too.

We’re now regularly contacted by members and supporters asking what to do about the fact that their employer has asked them to declare their preferred gender pronouns, usually below their name at the bottom of an email or official correspondence. That’s why last year we thought it would be useful to pull together some FAQs on this issue (which you can access here).

Can you be forced to declare your gender pronouns? As with so many free speech issues, there are some legal protections for employees who don’t want to, but there are also some legal justifications employers can cite for trying to get them to do so, namely, the Equality Act 2010. Then again, the Equality Act also provides some protection for employees if they’re being discriminated against on the basis of their religious or philosophical beliefs, such as the belief that sex is binary and fixed. So, it’s complicated…

If you have been asked to publicly declare your preferred pronouns by your manager or boss and you believe you might suffer a detriment if you refuse to do so, you should contact a member of our case team. Over the years, we’ve accumulated a lot of experience in this area, and have often secured successful outcomes for members.

Because of the privacy concerns at stake, we obviously can’t always publicise our successes, although one story we were able to go public with late last year gives a sense of the impact we can have when it comes to reminding bosses that employees have the right to their own political views.

Following a tip-off that an elite performing arts college in South London had told staff on more than one occasion to declare their preferred pronouns on email in solidarity with trans people, Toby wrote to the college principal, Mr De Abreu, setting out the legal violations that may have taken place, and asking him to make clear to staff that whether they chose to declare their gender pronouns in their signatures was optional, and that they wouldn’t suffer any detriment, including harm to their promotion prospects, if they refused to do so. Mr De Abreu was happy to oblige. “We appreciate that this may have been interpreted as an instruction to include pronouns and certain logos,” he conceded in a statement issued to the Mail just before they ran the story, “but it is not, and has never been, the intention of Bird College to require any staff member to declare pronouns, or to appear to support any political group in their email signature.”

FSU produces template document to support actuaries wishing to respond to IFoA consultation on the Actuaries’ Code!

The only chartered professional body for actuaries in the UK, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA), has begun a consultation on amending the Actuaries’ Code (AC) to include ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ – or DEI. The AC is the profession’s ethical code of conduct and one of the foundational documents governing the behaviour of members of the IFoA, so any changes will have considerable ramifications – not least because the IFoA has 32,000 members, including 15,000 student members and 46 partner universities.

It’s clearly important for professionals to be held to high standards of behaviour, and as with many other, similar codes, the AC applies to members across a very broad range of circumstances – wherever conduct could reasonably be considered to reflect upon the profession. So, for example, social media posts or political activity in members’ personal lives are covered by the Code.

Some of the new guidelines in the IFoA’s consultation are worrying.

Take the proposed amendment that “members must show respect for everyone and treat others fairly”. At first glance, that might seem reasonable. But the problem with words like ‘respect’ is that their meaning is potentially – sometimes designedly – vague and subjective. Is the IFoA talking about ‘respecting’ individuals as fellow members of society, for instance, or ‘respecting’ their self-declared identity? The two aren’t equivalent – the latter might require members of the IFoA to use the preferred gender pronouns of trans people, for instance.

And what about other people’s views? Will IFoA members be expected to respect them? When Richard Dawkins opines on religion, his manner may well be respectful, if by respectful we mean ‘polite and courteous’. But individuals with strongly held religious views may not find him at all respectful, if by respectful we mean ‘deferential and unquestioning’. So could an IFoA member be found to be in breach of the new Code simply for showing support for a public figure who expresses perfectly lawful criticisms of other peoples’ beliefs?

This is just one of many concerns the FSU has about the proposed amendments.

There’s a more general concern here too, in that the IFoA’s initial instincts highlight the changing role of professional organisations in regulating the behaviour – and speech – of their members. Where once these bodies would restrict themselves to upholding professional standards in the workplace, they now seem intent on collapsing entirely the distinction between occupational and private life.

If any FSU members who are also members of the IFoA are thinking of submitting a response to the consultation, then please do get in touch with the team via [email protected] – with the help of Katie Sokolowski we’ve prepared a template document setting out the issues at stake.

Prof Steven Greer reveals extent of Bristol University ordeal after falsely being accused of ‘Islamophobia’

Prof Steven Greer, until recently a law professor at Bristol University, spoke to the media this week about being forced into hiding and living in fear of his life after students made false accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ about his teaching materials (Express, Mail, Telegraph, Times, Times, Times Higher).

The FSU first stepped in to defend Prof Greer back in 2021 after university authorities mishandled a complaint from Bristol University’s Islamic Society (BriSoc) in which it was alleged that teaching materials on Greer’s ‘Islam, China and the Far East’ module were ‘Islamophobic’. (You can read our initial letter to Prof Judith Squires, the VC and Provost of Bristol University here.)

BriSoc claimed that a teaching slide that made reference to the 2015 terrorist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo constituted “Islamophobic rhetoric” and, in addition, that he had given a “bigoted and divisive” lecture on women and non-Muslims in Islamic states and the penalties handed out under sharia law.

A five-month inquiry led by a senior academic at the university found that BriSoc’s allegations were baseless. A senior KC appointed to look into his conduct also found no evidence of an offence under the Equality Act 2010 and concluded that his teaching material “did not amount to discrimination or harassment and was intended as the basis for academic debate by the students who elected to study it”.

Despite both parties being asked to keep the investigation confidential, BriSoc engaged in a campaign of online vilification against Prof Greer both during and after the investigation, with the aid of an online petition and various social media platforms. In the digital storm which ensued, Prof Greer was at one point compared to Samuel Paty, the French school teacher beheaded in October 2020 by an Islamist militant who believed that illustrating a class discussion about blasphemy and freedom of expression with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed justified his beheading.

Speaking to the Mail, Prof Greer criticised students for putting the lives of academics at risk, and said direct threats left him fearing for his life. In his book published this week, however, he directs much of his ire at the university, which, even after he was cleared, cancelled his teaching module – because administrators didn’t want the course to attract any more complaints – and issued a statement saying that it “recognise[d] BriSoc’s concerns”. The lack of institutional support on offer was further illustrated, Prof Greer says, by the fact that BriSoc was not required to apologise or remove its online petition or social media content, even after the allegations had been rejected.

Commenting on the case for the Times, FSU Legal Officer Karolien Celie said Prof Greer’s “horrific ordeal” was “yet another salutary reminder of the fragility of academic freedom in the contemporary UK”. It’s certainly interesting to reflect on Prof Greer’s case in light of recent debates over the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. One of the arguments that critics of the Bill made repeatedly on its second reading in the House of Lords, for instance, was that the legislation’s new free speech duties address a non-existent problem. There is no free speech crisis at English universities, the peers claimed, because a recent review of 10,000 university events by Wonkhe found that only six had been cancelled and, as Baroness Thornton triumphantly pointed out, “four of those because of faulty paperwork”.

But as Prof Greer’s ordeal so aptly demonstrates, cancellation of visiting speakers is not the only form of cancel culture on campus. The bureaucratic, unnecessarily drawn-out processes which universities use to investigate staff who, like Prof Greer, have done little more than exercise their right to academic freedom, tend to exert their own ‘chilling’ effect. As Baroness Fox observed at second reading in the House of Lords, it’s not the risk of downstream contractual termination, but the upstream process of being accused and investigated that becomes the punishment, leaving a blemish on a person’s reputation which other academics are then able to see, and reflect upon in light of their own potentially ‘inappropriate’ behaviour. Small wonder Prof Greer is warning that scholars in the fields of the arts, humanities and social sciences are now self-censoring and ‘dumbing down’ their courses for fear of being falsely branded as “hostile to minorities” by “woke student campaigners” (Telegraph).

The FSU has been proud to support Steven through an ordeal that, as Jawad Iqbal points out in the Times, “violate[d] every principle underpinning a free society, and [brought] shame on the university authorities who were too quick to throw him under the bus”. In a recent email to our legal team, which Steven has very kindly allowed us to share with our members, he described “how phenomenally grateful I am to you all for your stupendous help and support over the past year and a half or so. Without you, my family and other friends, the BriSoc scandal would have been truly unbearable.”

Help protect freedom of speech in the workplace by donating to Karen Sunderland’s fundraise!

Four years later, when Karen was embarking on a new career, someone tipped off her employer about this episode and she was fired. Karen believes her comments were protected political speech, and that her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. Her claim makes two important legal arguments.

Second, Karen argues that she was dismissed because of her belief in freedom of speech. In short, free-thinkers attract controversy, and always have – and employers who put rigid speech codes in place are disproportionately affecting those who believe in free speech. A finding that freedom of speech is a protected belief would give legal protection to other employees who manifest that belief by speaking their minds and testing received wisdom.

You can donate to Karen’s fundraiser here.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

FSU Communications Officer

Weekly news round-up

10th February 2023

Statutory tort restored to Higher Education Bill in big free speech victory!

The Lords Amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill were debated in the House of Commons this week, and there was a terrific outcome for academic freedom, viewpoint diversity and freedom of expression at English universities. Following the Government’s announcement earlier in the week that it would support the statutory tort in the bill as originally drafted, Lords Amendment 10 – which sought to remove the right of students and staff to sue universities that breach their speech rights in the County Court – was rejected at division by 283 votes to 161! (Times Higher).

This is a big victory, and it’s thanks in no small part to the thousands of FSU members and supporters that used our digital campaigning tool to email their MPs urging them not to dilute this important Bill. Indeed, the fact that 283 MPs ended up walking through the Division Lobby in support of the Government’s proposal to reject Amendment 10 is testament to the impact that our campaign work is having on our elected representatives.

In technical, legislative terms, clause 4 of the legislation as drafted creates the statutory tort which will allow aggrieved parties to take legal action. In the FSU’s view, it is this tort which gives the legislation’s new free speech duties teeth.

Claire Coutinho, the Under Secretary of State for Education and the minister responsible for the Bill, is the member of the Government we have to thank for restoring the tort. Writing in the Telegraph, she said it “will allow those who have suffered any loss – financial or otherwise – to seek redress through the courts where needed. I’ve spoken to many leading academics who share my belief that the tort is necessary to secure the cultural change needed on campus.”

Sadly, however, it was this aspect of the legislation that met with strong opposition in the House of Lords, where critics voted to strip out clause 4 in its entirety, as per Amendment 10 alluded to above. Their main criticism of the tort was that it would subject higher education providers to costly, time consuming and unmeritorious or vexatious claims.

Speaking during the debate, John Hayes was distinctly unimpressed. It was “disappointing”, he said, that the “academic establishment in the other place” had wanted to scrap clause 4, but not particularly surprising “because of course these people look after their own”.

Among the MPs who rose during the debate to support the Government’s decision to reject Amendment 10 was Miriam Cates. In a terrific speech, she pointed out that the tort will enable staff and students whose free speech rights are infringed to seek “rapid redress in a financially affordable way”. Without it, she said, “the free speech protections in the Bill could be enforced only by an independent regulator, which would likely result in dispute resolutions taking months, or by bringing a judicial review against the university in question, which is prohibitively expensive for almost all students and academics”.

Danny Kruger also took the time to say how “impressed” he was by Claire Coutinho for bringing the tort back in its original form. “She has resisted the academic establishment in the universities… to stand up for the principle of free speech and the importance of the tort,” he said. John Hayes agreed. It must have taken “determination, insight and… a degree of courage”, he said, “because it is easy to roll over when the big beasts in the other place roar in defence of the academic establishment”.

It’s also worth saying that the FSU is aware of dozens of academics who’ve been at the sharp end of cancel culture in British universities that have contacted Ms Coutinho over the past few weeks to tell her why they think the tort is essential. It is greatly to her credit that she has listened not to the academic establishment, but to the many academics who are not currently speaking their minds or pursuing important research topics, simply for fear of being ostracised by their peers or left at the mercy of university authorities that use all kinds of techniques to silence them.

Online speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Our next members-only Online Speakeasy is ‘Defeating Twitter Bans and Defending Free Speech’, featuring FSU General Secretary Toby Young in conversation with Meghan Murphy. Join us on Zoom at 7.30pm on Wednesday 8th March for this online Speakeasy with Canadian journalist, writer and podcaster Meghan Murphy. You can register for the event here.

Meghan is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. She has spoken up about the issue of gender identity legislation and women’s rights, including in the Canadian senate and the Scottish Parliament, and has had to endure repeated threats of death, rape, violence and censorship (Telegraph). On the topic of censorship, Meghan was permanently banned from Twitter in 2018 for saying that men are not women. Thankfully, the ban was lifted by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, in November 2022.

You can find Meghan on Twitter here and Substack here. To whet your appetite for the FSU’s Speakeasy, you can listen to Meghan’s appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience here and her Triggernometry appearance here.

Regional Speakeasies – book your tickets here!

Having held very lively regional Speakeasies in Cardiff, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford, the FSU continues its ‘national tour’ next week, with events in Birmingham (15th February) and Brighton (20th February).

Come along to hear FSU staff members Tom Harris (Birmingham) and Toby Young (Brighton) discuss why free speech is worth fighting for. The Regional Speakeasies are a great opportunity to hear how our work is developing across many different fronts, including case work, research, campaigning and lobbying. In addition, there’ll be plenty of time for discussion, as well as socialising with fellow free speech supporters.

Do come along to one and bring curious friends and colleagues, not forgetting to book your places via our Events page, which you can find here.

Online Safety Bill to be used to outlaw “online misogyny”

During an appearance on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s TalkTV show this week, FSU Legislative Affairs Director Sam Armstrong expressed concern that legislators were treating the Online Safety Bill as a legislative ‘hobbyhorse’. He went on to recount a conversation with a peer in the House of Lords who is “openly describing the Bill as ‘a continent ready to be colonised. It’s there,’ he told me. ‘It’s the bare bones, and we’re going to pin onto it every single social whim that we’re concerned about.’ It’s going to be very dangerous,” Sam added, “because peers are going to try and ban anything they don’t personally happen to like.”

It was a point nicely illustrated by news that the Government may now use the Bill to crack down on what it terms “online misogyny” (Bloomberg, Guardian, Mail, Reclaim the Net, Sun). Under the latest version of the legislation, social media firms are already required by law to abide by their terms of service, which generally bar misogynistic abuse. Failure to enforce these terms will result in the regulator Ofcom fining them up to 10% of their global turnover.

However, a group of Conservative peers – Baroness Morgan, erstwhile David Cameron aide Baroness Bertin, and Baroness Newlove, a former victims’ commissioner – plan to put forward an amendment that will see the law go even further, granting Ofcom the power to fine social media platforms if they fail to abide by a code proscribing online misogyny. As the Telegraph points out, because the Labour Party has indicated it will support the amendment, the Government may now have to compromise or face defeat in the House of Lords.

At first glance, the peers’ proposal might seem reasonable. After all, who wants to defend misogyny, on- or offline? Yet much of the online content that the amendment’s backers seem to be concerned about is already illegal. Baroness Morgan, for instance, cites “threats of rape and death threats” that are “very much directed at women because they are women and girls” as examples of online statements that do not “necessarily break the illegal threshold” – but the former women’s minister must surely know that both are criminal offences, and serious ones at that (Mail). As Sam pointed out on Talk TV, surely it would make sense to enforce current laws rather than create new ones with the potential to inadvertently ban people from expressing their views on a plethora of issues.

Is the proposed amendment likely to have that effect? Absolutely. The problem with phrases like ‘online misogyny’ is that their meaning is potentially – sometimes deliberately – vague and subjective. At the level of practical, day-to-day content moderation, for instance, it will be difficult for Big Tech platforms to operationalise that concept with any meaningful sensitivity or specificity.

Faced with having to remove vague, subjectively defined ‘misogynistic’ content not already covered by existing laws – will misgendering or ‘deadnaming’ a transwoman count as ‘online misogyny’? – and threatened with enormous fines if they get it wrong it seems inevitable that social media platforms will take the course involving the least risk, tweaking their algorithms to adopt an ‘if in doubt, cut it out’ policy. Not only will this involve a huge measure of regulatory overkill, it will have a chilling effect on online freedom of speech.

And that’s before you factor in the plethora of activist groups that will inevitably petition social media platforms to remove any content they happen to find disagreeable on the grounds that it amounts to “online misogyny”. That might sound far-fetched, but it’s a threat that was presaged earlier this week when the Guardian asked women in the UK to share their experiences of being “subjected to online misogyny”, and quickly found itself subject to a barrage of replies from women for whom the main source of ‘online misogyny’ was, er, the Guardian (Guido).

All very amusing, of course, until you consider that proffered examples of the paper’s alleged ‘online misogyny’ included biased reporting on gender ideology, Owen Jones’s opinions, Owen Jones per se, the removal of JK Rowling from its list of celebrity birthdays, and articles that use gender-neutral terms like ‘birthing bodies’ and ‘chestfeeding’. Whatever one thinks about the Guardian’s position on women’s sex-based rights or its treatment of female writers like Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman (e.g., Critic, Mail, Sky News, Unherd), do we really want to see legislation introduced in this country that will make it easier for activists to pressure social media companies into censoring content that, however offensively ‘misogynistic’ some may find it, is in fact perfectly lawful?

The defiance of Salman Rushdie

Sir Salman Rushdie has spoken for the first time about being stabbed last year at an event in New York. In an interview with The New Yorker, the author and British citizen said he was “lucky… my main overwhelming feeling is gratitude”.

Sir Salman has lived with a bounty on his head ever since his Booker Prize-winning novel, The Satanic Verses, attracted the ire of Islamists the world over after it was published in 1988. Hardline clerics, community leaders and protesters condemned it as blasphemous. Copies were burnt, protests organised, and effigies of the author hanged, until eventually this agitation caught the attention of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini who issued his fatwa in 1989, offering $3 million to anyone who would kill the author, or anyone involved in its publication and distribution.

Ahead of a speech in August last year, he was attacked on stage by an Islamist sympathiser and stabbed in the chest, liver, hand, face and neck. Sir Salman spent six weeks in hospital, and has lost the sight in his right eye. But he has not lost his sense of humour, joking during his interview that people who turned against him during the fatwa have changed their tune. “People didn’t like it, because I should have died,” he said. “Now that I’ve almost died, everybody loves me. That was my mistake back then – not only did I live but I tried to live well. Bad mistake. Get 15 stab wounds, much better.”

At other moments, however, he is more sombre, speaking of his ongoing battle with PTSD, and admitting to not being “out of the forest” just yet.

“There have been nightmares – not exactly the incident, but just frightening,” he said. “Those seem to be diminishing. I’m fine. I’m able to get up and walk around. When I say I’m fine, I mean, there’s bits of my body that need constant check-ups. It was a colossal attack… I’ve found it very, very difficult to write. I sit down to write, and nothing happens. I write, but it’s a combination of blankness and junk, stuff that I write and that I delete the next day.”

In an unsettling piece for Spiked, Brendan O’Neill suggests the “dark truth” about the attempt on Salman’s life is that “it is not as alien to our civilisation as we would like to believe”. It was, he says, “really a more violent, more medieval manifestation of an idea that is tragically commonplace now – that words wound, feeling offended is terrible, and steps must sometimes be taken to blacklist or silence those who hurt your feelings”. Understood in that context, Haidi Matar, Rushdie’s would-be assassin, is not so much a last, desperate lunge against modernity as “a more menacing enforcer of the cult of cancellation that has Western society in its baleful grip”.

And yet, when it comes down to it, what has Matar actually ‘enforced’? For all Rushdie’s self-deprecating references to the “blankness and junk” of his recent output, the fact is that his first instinct while convalescing has been to write – and not just to write, but to make plans to write about the attack and its aftermath (“a kind of first-person sequel”, he says, to the third-person memoir, Joseph Anton). Beyond the barbarity of the physical attack, then, this defiant, unconquerable 75-year-old author has in fact retained the ability and the right to craft what fellow novelist Jeanette Winterson once described as “the language that books allow”; a way to undercut the literalism of dogma, to talk about complexity, to connect to other times, places, deeper sympathies, to explore the untamed open spaces of the imagination – a way to keep the heart awake to love and beauty, as Coleridge has it. Nor, for that matter, is Matar in any position to redeem his palpable failings as an enforcer, menacing or otherwise, commanding little more these days than his secret society of one and the contents of a prison cell around which he paces, up and down, up and down, lost in a darkness that will lengthen into his life.

The Worker Protection Bill and the spectre of the ‘banter police’

The FSU has been briefing MPs on the troubling implications for free speech and freedom of expression of a hitherto little-known Private Members’ Bill proposed by Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse, which is only now beginning to attract media coverage (Daily Star, GMB, Mail, Mail, Sun, Sun). Thanks to the Government’s support, the ‘Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill’ sailed through the Commons last week and is on its way to the Lords.

As the Bill’s title suggests, the legislation Hobhouse and the government are proposing to amend is the Equality Act 2010, which among other things imposes a legal duty on employers to protect workers from harassment by other employees defined as “unwanted conduct relating to a protected characteristic” (i.e., age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation) where that conduct has the purpose or effect of “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.

The Hobhouse bill will expand that duty, rendering bosses additionally liable for harassment of their employees by members of the public that they come into contact with while doing their jobs. If we were just talking about, say, sexual harassment, that would be one thing. But this bill actually seeks to extend third-party liability to every type of ‘unwanted conduct’ already prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, including overheard conversations. In other words, if the bill becomes law, employers will have a duty to protect their workers from overhearing ‘upsetting’ remarks made not only by their colleagues, but by third parties as well.

Following pressure from the FSU, the government has amended the Bill so speech that involves “an expression of opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter” is protected. That’s better, but it’s still not great. What about pub banter and football chants, for instance? As FSU General Secretary Toby Young put it in the Spectator, “If a barmaid or stadium steward overhears something they find upsetting that relates to a protected characteristic, even if it isn’t addressed to them, they can still sue their employers for harassment.”

The Bill presents a particular challenge to employers with public-facing staff because it makes them legally liable if they fail to take what Clause 1 of the Bill as drafted describes as “all reasonable steps to prevent third-parties” from harassing their employees.

Will employers be required to proactively prevent anything that might constitute harassment? And what might that look like in practice? Will pubs be expected to put up signs saying, ‘No banter allowed’?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, FSU Head Toby Young is now calling on the minister for women and equalities, Kemi Badenoch, to ditch the bill in its entirety. Writing in the Sun, he pointed out that with hospitality venues struggling to survive rising energy costs, inflation and train strikes, “more red tape is the last thing they need”.

Interestingly, Danny Kruger MP felt there might be another angle to this story. Granted, ‘red tape’ is the last thing some businesses need – but might some companies, following in PayPal’s censorial footsteps, actually embrace the idea of policing their customers in this way? With the legislation before the House of Commons last week, Mr Kruger took to the floor of the House to express concern at the ramifications of Clause 1’s ‘reasonable steps’ with regard to the type of censorship that it might not simply necessitate – Toby’s ‘red tape’ point – but also justify.

The problem, he said, spelling it out, was that “a censorious spirit has entered the soul of organisations that hold power and accountability in our country”, and “what we need to consider in drafting legislation [of this sort] is the actual effect of the law on the people who will be responsible for enforcing it”.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

FSU Communications Officer

Weekly news round-up

3rd February 2023

Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join, and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this email. If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to return in its original form

Some great news broke yesterday evening – the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill returns to the House of Commons on February 7th and we have good reason to believe the new statutory tort, which will enable students and academics to sue universities that breach their speech rights in the County Court, will be restored in full (Telegraph).

This is a big victory and it’s thanks in no small part to our members and supporters who used our digital campaigning tool to email their MPs urging them not to dilute this important Bill.

As we’ve long pointed out, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill strengthens the right of students and academics to discuss, debate, and debunk each other’s views (you can read our most recent briefings here, here and here). Although there are already several laws protecting academic free speech on the statute books, they are more honoured in the breach than the observance. What is so promising about the Higher Ed Bill – at least, as it was originally drafted – is that it both strengthens these protections and creates mechanisms for enforcing them. Specifically, Clause 4 created a statutory tort to enable academics and students to sue universities and students’ unions in the County Court for compensation if they breach their new duties to protect free speech on campus, as set out in the Bill.

However, this element of the legislation met with strong opposition during the Bill’s Second Reading and Report stages in the House of Lords in December.

Sensing trouble, we decided to pull together a letter to the Education Secretary Gillian Keegan from more than 50 academics, urging the government not to get rid of the tort (Telegraph). We think our letter helped to dissuade the Government from scrapping the tort altogether, although its defence of the tort could hardly be described as Churchillian. In an attempt to strike a compromise with the Bill’s critics, the government tabled an amendment in the Lords that would require academics and students to only seek compensation in the County Court as a last resort, after first pursuing complaints through the procedures of the relevant university and the higher education regulator (the amendment can be found here, close to the top of page 3). We were unhappy about that. Our position is that the new statutory tort is what would give the legislation’s new free speech duties teeth, and if that’s reduced to a weapon of last resort, the Bill is essentially a dead letter.

In what may turn out to be a stroke of good fortune, however, the critics of the Bill in the Lords rejected this compromise and voted to strip out Clause 4 in its entirety. When the Bill returns to the Commons next week, the government has indicated it will restore the tort in its original form – a far better outcome than if the compromise had been accepted in the Lords.

Credit for this sensible decision should go to Claire Coutinho, the Under Secretary of State for Education and the minister responsible for the Bill. Dozens of academics who’ve been at the sharp end of cancel culture in British universities have contacted her to tell her why they think the tort is essential. She has clearly listened to them and not the sector’s lobbyists in the House of Lords, which is greatly to her credit. In politics, as in other walks of life, being intransigent is not always the best policy.

Online speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Meghan is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. She has spoken up about the issue of gender identity legislation and women’s rights, including in the Canadian senate and the Scottish Parliament, and has had to endure repeated threats of death, rape, violence and censorship (Telegraph). On the topic of censorship, Meghan was permanently banned from Twitter in 2018 for saying that men are not women. Thankfully, the ban was lifted by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, in November 2022.

Christians risk being criminalised by trans conversion therapy ban

In a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, 1,400 church leaders from different denominations have warned that the government’s proposed ban on trans conversion therapy is “confused”, “unnecessary”, and could have the unintended consequence of “stifling the voices of loving parents and pastoral carers” (Telegraph).

The authors of the Greater Love Declaration say the teachings of their faiths are “at grave risk of being outlawed by the proposed legislation”. In their letter, they write: “If the Government gives in to activists’ demands, it appears almost certain that innocent Christians will be criminalised. Indeed, this seems to be the goal of at least some of those most eager for a new law… We fear that the proposed legislation could far worsen the situation by stifling the voices of loving parents and pastoral carers.”

In a statement, the Government Equalities Office – which is ultimately responsible for the legislation – said that “there are clearly issues that are not fully resolved” about how the ban will work. “We are determined that legislation will not cause harm to children and young adults experiencing gender-related distress by inadvertently impacting on legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children,” the statement added.

The FSU is concerned about the impact such a ban might have on the free speech, not just of religious leaders or parents, but also doctors, therapists and teachers and parents. To ensure ministers are careful about what speech the law actually bans, any proposed legislation will need to be scrutinised very carefully. That’s why we’re encouraging our members and supporters to email their MPs, using our campaigning tool, and share these concerns.

The link to the campaigning tool is here.

FSU Chairman Prof Nigel Biggar and the thwarted book cancellation

Eminent Oxford academic and FSU Chairman Professor Nigel Biggar has spoken about British publisher Bloomsbury’s decision to cancel his latest book Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, and revealed that a source at the company told him senior executives pulled the plug because junior staff found the book’s conclusion – that colonialism wasn’t all bad – to be in poor taste (Spectator, Telegraph, TCW, Times).

Why are new recruits in areas like publishing so susceptible to this authoritarian ideology? From overwrought Amazon employees prostrating themselves on the floor at so-called “die-ins” to protest the company’s sale of allegedly ‘harmful’ transphobic books (Bloomberg), to LGBTQ+ venue workers primly refusing to host an academic conference because certain speakers hold views that don’t align with their values (Scottish Daily Express), through to sensitive staff at the Old Vic successfully lobbying bosses to scrap Terry Gilliam’s latest musical production because his views on the immutable, biological reality of sex make them feel “uncomfortable” (Mail), the latest generation of activists just don’t seem to care about free speech or freedom of expression.

Come to think of it, what is it about the sight of a small number of shouty, doctrinaire twentysomethings that compels senior executives to fold up their liberal principles and steal silently away? Because as Prof Biggar himself points out, it’s not easy to see why grown-up leaders are so easily spooked by the hyperventilated pressure oozing up from below (Spectator). It’s true that publishers have commercial necessities – but surely, they have civic duties too? “If every publisher behaved like Bloomsbury did with me,” he says, “then important books that challenge received ideas that may be deeply mistaken won’t get published.” (Times)

Prof Biggar’s book challenges what Sherelle Jacobs refers to as the “Evil White Male” version of history, arguing that despite grave mistakes and moments of gross injustice, the British Empire learnt from its errors and was increasingly propelled by humanitarian and liberal ideals, most notably through the abolition and suppression of slavery (Telegraph). It also examines the work of a number of historians who Prof Biggar claims “overstate” the sins of British colonialism, concluding that they are sustained by contempt for the West. (Prof Biggar summarises the core argument of his book in an excellent piece for The Critic here).

The manuscript was delivered at the end of 2020. After reading it, his editor at Bloomsbury emailed to say he was “speechless” with enthusiasm, and that it was one of the most important books he’d come across in some time. Three months later, however, Prof Biggar received an email from Sarah Broadway, the Head of Special Interest Publishing at the company, which said “conditions are not currently favourable to publication” and that she wanted to delay. According to the Times, Prof Biggar asked Ms Broadway to clarify what she meant, and the following email exchange took place:

Ms Broadway: “We consider that public feeling on the subject does not currently support the publication of the book and will reassess that next year.”

Prof Biggar: “Could you clarify for me, please: which public feeling concerns you; in what sense it is ‘unfavourable’ to publication; and what would need to change to make it ‘favourable’ again?”

Ms Broadway: Bloomsbury had “grappled with giving defined criteria” but found this “difficult to define objectively… we have concluded that this subjectivity could lead to your book being in a limbo lasting more than a year or it might not, but we don’t wish to put you in that position of uncertainty.”

Prof Biggar: “It is quite clear . . . the public feeling that concerns you is that of – for want of a more scientific term – the ‘woke’ Left. Rather than publish cogent arguments and important truths that would attract the aggression of these illiberals, you choose to align yourselves with them by de-platforming me. In so doing, you have made your own contribution to the expansion of authoritarianism and the shrinking of moral and political diversity.”

Sadly, the Times doesn’t record Ms Broadway’s response. It’s difficult to imagine there was one, other than perhaps “Oh, ah”. Even before the renowned Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology decided to whip off the cerebral safety catch and start historicising Ms Broadway’s professional failings as part of the longue durée, you sensed you were in the presence of a Head of Special Interest Publishing who wasn’t at all sure she was equal to the intellectual pressure of events.

Thankfully, Prof Biggar’s book is now being published by William Collins – you can purchase a copy here.

The Government’s secretive Ministry of Truth exposed by new report

A report by the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch has unmasked the scale of the digital surveillance system established by the government since the Covid lockdowns in order to identify, monitor and censor perfectly lawful yet dissenting online speech (Epoch Times, Mail, Press Gazette, Telegraph). Among those spied upon by this sinister network are Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Carl Heneghan, Tom Jefferson, Lord Sumption and our own General Secretary.

Speaking to GB News, Toby likened the report to the “Twitter files”, not least for the way it turns up yet more collusion between state agencies and Big Tech. Writing for Spiked, Fraser Myers said it revealed “an unprecedented assault… on our freedom of expression and our freedom to dissent”. The report was “proof”, according to the Mail, that “parts of the British State… were engaged in actions on the edge of thought and speech control”. Timandra Harkness, meanwhile, felt that the secretive disinformation units at the heart of the story pieced together by Big Brother Watch had “no place in a democracy” (Unherd).

Very little information has previously been published voluntarily by the government regarding its domestic counter disinformation units, and it’s only thanks to numerous Freedom of Information and Subject Access requests that Big Brother Watch was able to establish that the government has (at least) three such units, all of which are tasked with monitoring social media users in the UK, flagging ‘misleading’ content to their Whitehall paymasters who then urge tech platforms to silence them. These units are the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) in DCMS, the Intelligence and Communications Unit in the Home Office, the Cabinet Office’s Rapid Response Unit (since disbanded, according to the government) and the 77th Brigade, a combined Regular and Army reserve unit within the Ministry of Defence.

The CDU, for instance, was originally established to fight what the government calls ‘disinformation’. At first glance that seems like a fairly reasonable remit. After all, disinformation is defined in the dictionary as “false information spread in order to deceive people”. Maybe so, but over at the CDU, the word ‘disinformation’ seems to have been peculiarly malleable.

During the Covid lockdowns, for instance, the unit’s remit was widened to cover not just the disinformation of previous iterations, but also the “inadvertent sharing of false information” – i.e., misinformation. It’s also noticeable that government ministers quickly took to describing the CDU’s task as that of poring over online expression and pressing for the censorship of speech deemed “misleading” or “inappropriate”. (To understand how the government persuaded units tasked with monitoring ‘disinformation’ to spy on critics of its pandemic response, see this clip from Toby’s recent interview on Spectator TV.)

Is there any limit to who the CDU will subject to scrutiny? Apparently not. Conservative MP and former Home Secretary David Davis was among those cited in CDU files as “critical of the Government” after questioning the mathematical reasoning behind Imperial University’s pandemic modelling. Dr Alexandre de Figueiredo, the statistics lead at the Vaccine Confidence Project, also came to the unit’s attention after publishing work looking at the negative impact Covid passports could have on vaccine confidence.

The government claims that the CDU can’t mandate that platforms remove content like this, which is true. But what’s also true is that DCMS enjoys a special relationship with several social networks by dint of its “trusted flagger status”, something that inevitably gives officials extra weight when flagging content for review. Not that they necessarily need that extra weight – as the Twitter Files make clear, such is the power and regulatory heft of government and state agencies that social media companies are always keen and eager to do whatever it is that they think officials want them to do.

The legal issues at stake here are particularly troubling. Article 10 of the ECHR sets out that member states’ interferences with the right to freedom of expression should be provided by law, yet the CDU and the other shadowy anti-disinformation units aren’t authorised by an act of parliament, and currently have no formal judicial or law enforcement function. The fact that entirely lawful content is regularly being flagged at the discretion of unaccountable civil servants in this way poses clear and obvious risks to freedom of speech. As Toby points out, “on this occasion, these agencies may not have gone beyond monitoring our journalistic and social media activities”, but in the absence of a statutory footing and all the attendant Parliamentary oversight and democratic accountability, “what’s to stop them going further next time?” (Spectator).

And what of the future – given that the government’s lockdown-era policies seem to have been abandoned, is there any hope that these units might be disbanded? During a debate on the Online Safety Bill in the House of Commons last year, the then Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, Chris Philp, had this to say: “As far as I am aware we intend to continue with the [CDU]… Clearly, I cannot commit future Ministers in perpetuity, but my personal view – if I am allowed to express it – is that that unit performs a useful function and could valuably be continued into the future.”

The question is, is that “useful function” monitoring cyber threats to our national security… or spying on the government’s political foes?

Regional Speakeasies – book your tickets here!

Having held very lively regional Speakeasies in Cardiff, Manchester and Edinburgh, the FSU continues its ‘national tour’ next week, with events in Oxford (7th February), Cambridge (8th February), Birmingham (15th February) and Brighton (20th February).

Come along to hear FSU staff members Ben Jones (Oxford), Karolien Celie (Cambridge), Tom Harris (Birmingham) and Toby Young (Brighton) discuss why free speech is worth fighting for. The Regional Speakeasies are a great opportunity to hear how our work is developing across many different fronts, including case work, research, campaigning and lobbying. In addition, there’ll be plenty of time for discussion, as well as socialising with fellow free speech supporters.

Do come along to one and bring curious friends and colleagues, not forgetting to book your places via our Events page, which you can find here.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

FSU Communications Officer

Weekly news round-up

27th January 2023

Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join, and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this newsletter. If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.

Gender conversion therapy ban – use our campaigning tool to write to your MP!

The Government announced last week that it would bring forward a bill to ban ‘conversion therapy’ – not just with respect to sexuality, but gender identity as well (Telegraph, Times). This is a complex issue, and the FSU is concerned about the impact such a ban might have on the free speech of doctors, therapists, teachers and parents, not to mention religious leaders. To ensure ministers are careful about what speech the law actually bans, any proposed legislation will need to be scrutinised very carefully. For instance, would a ‘conversion therapy’ ban in England and Wales make it a criminal offence for a parent to object to their child taking puberty blockers? In the state of Victoria, Australia, which passed a ‘conversion therapy’ ban last year, it is. That’s why we’re encouraging our members and supporters to email their MPs, using our campaigning tool, and share these concerns. The link to the campaigning tool is here.

Online speakeasy with Meghan Murphy – register for tickets here!

Meghan is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, a feminist website and podcast, and host of YouTube channel The Same Drugs. She has spoken up about the issue of gender identity legislation and women’s rights, including in the Canadian senate and the Scottish Parliament, and has had to endure repeated threats of death, rape, violence and censorship (Telegraph). On the topic of censorship, Meghan was permanently banned from Twitter in 2018 for saying – gasp! – that men are not women. Thankfully, the ban was lifted by Twitter’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, some four years later, in November 2022.

Regional Speakeasies – book your tickets here!

Having held very lively regional Speakeasies in Cardiff, Manchester and Edinburgh, the FSU continues its ‘national tour’ in February, with events in Oxford (7th February), Cambridge (8th February), Birmingham (15th February) and Brighton (20th February).

Labour MP Rosie Duffield “bullied” and “silenced” over gender reform

During last week’s House of Commons debate on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Labour MP and prominent campaigner for women’s sex-based rights Rosie Duffield was heckled by her party’s own male backbenchers (Express, Mail, Sun, Telegraph). During her speech, she welcomed the Government’s move to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Bill – which would cut the time it takes to legally change your gender, lower the age at which you can do it to 16 and eliminate the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria – from proceeding to Royal Assent. Ms Duffield went on to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, whether he “recognised the strength of feeling among women and women’s rights groups and activists in Scotland that this Bill seeks to allow anyone at all to legally self-identify as either sex and, therefore, enter all spaces, including those necessarily segregated by sex, such as domestic violence settings, changing rooms and prisons?” (Times)

Writing in the Times, Jawad Iqbal describes what Ms Duffield had to endure while asking this question as “appalling bullying” – and Parliament TV’s clip of her speech makes for uncomfortable viewing. As soon as Ms Duffield gets to her feet, the atmosphere turns nasty. Clearly uncomfortable, she struggles throughout to be heard over the abuse directed at her from her own benches. Lips curl. Heads are shaken. Facial expressions register unnecessarily theatricalised versions of ‘disgust’, presumably as much for the watching cameras as for the purposes of ostracising Ms Duffield. Just out of shot, Lloyd Russell-Moyle can be heard working himself into a spittle-flecked rage, barracking Ms Duffield throughout, while former minister Ben Bradshaw shouts “absolute rubbish” just as she’s defending the need for traumatised female victims of male-perpetrated violence to have access to spaces that are segregated by sex.

“A woman Labour MP being shouted down by male colleagues for expressing her views?” queries Jawad. “Hardly a good look for the so-called progressive party.” And yet some of Ms Duffield’s colleagues see the situation quite differently. Speaking anonymously to Pink News, one Labour MP claimed that “[Rosie] thrives on the attention” and that “many” in the Labour Party “are getting tired of her constantly undermining us all and attacking colleagues”. You can certainly see why Ms Duffield this week chose to compare being in the Labour Party to an “abusive relationship” (Telegraph, Times, Unherd). The act of blaming someone or holding them responsible for a situation they didn’t actually create is a textbook form of ‘gaslighting’ – i.e., a particularly egregious form of emotional manipulation.

Audio has also since emerged of Matthew Doyle, a senior aide to Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer, briefing against Ms Duffield (Guido). Mr Doyle was caught on tape dismissing the MP as “irritating” and “disingenuous” and suggesting it might be helpful if she “spen[t] a bit more time in Canterbury [her constituency]” rather than “hanging out with JK Rowling”. Quite what this “irritating” woman is supposed to bother her pretty little head with once she’s returned to her constituency and allowed her male colleagues to properly discuss the impact of Scotland’s Bill on women’s rights, Mr Doyle doesn’t say. Powdering her nose? Tending to some children? Smiling vacuously and speaking only when spoken to by male constituents? No doubt the Whips Office will pass along a list of domestic chores in due course.

A party source has since claimed that Mr Doyle wasn’t briefing against Rosie (Guido). In response, Ms Duffield was quick to point out that whatever we want to call Mr Doyle’s remarks, their intended effect remains the same: “When women are considered difficult, these statements are obviously designed to undermine us. Sow a little seed of doubt… rumours that might catch on.” (Mail).

Jawad Iqbal concludes his piece for the Times with the following observation: “If Rosie Duffield – a single mother, a survivor of domestic abuse and a passionate advocate for women’s rights – no longer feels welcome in Labour, then who and what is the party for?”

Politically motivated financial censorship – a call for information!

The FSU needs your help. We’re looking for examples of politically motivated financial censorship that you, or anyone you know, may have experienced or heard about.

In the wake of PayPal’s attempt to deplatform the FSU last summer, Sally-Ann Hart and Andrew Lewer tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The amendment addressed “refusal to provide services for reasons connected with freedom of expression” and stated that: “No payment service provider providing a relevant service may refuse to supply that service to any other person in the United Kingdom if the reason for the refusal is significantly related to the customer exercising his or her right to freedom of expression.”

However, the amendment was withdrawn after the City Minister promised Mr Hart and Mr Lewer that the issues it was seeking to address would be included in the terms of reference of a forthcoming statutory consultation about the Payment Services Regulations. That consultation has now begun, and it’s great to see that, as per the agreement with Ms Hart and Mr Lewer, it will now assess whether clearer guidelines are needed about when companies can withhold or withdraw services from customers for political reasons.

We think this could be an important moment – an opportunity to check the creeping trend towards a Chinese-style social system in countries like ours.

On the subject of the Government’s open-mind, it’s particularly encouraging to see that in the consultation (which you can see here), the Government makes it “very clear” that “the legitimate expression of differing views, is an important British liberty”, that it “does not support ‘cancel culture’” and that “regulations must respect the balance of rights between users’ and service providers’ obligations, including in relation to protecting the freedom of expression of anyone expressing lawful views”.

In order to provide the Government with as many examples of financial censorship as we can, we’re asking our members and supporters to send us any examples they may have come across, particularly if it involves them. To be clear, we’re after examples of financial services companies (such as high street banks), payment processors (like PayPal) and crowdfunding platforms (IndieGoGo) either withholding or withdrawing services from customers because they disapprove of their perfectly lawful views.

You can get in touch via our email address: [email protected]. Alternatively, you can direct message us on Facebook (here), Instagram (here) or Twitter (here).

Sign our Jeremy Clarkson petition!

Last Friday, we started a petition urging the CEO of ITV not to sack Jeremy Clarkson from his job as host of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? It now has over 57,000 signatures.

Whatever your view of his remarks about Meghan Markle in the Sun, it cannot be right that he should lose his livelihood as a consequence. Amazon has indicated it will not commission any more seasons of Clarkson’s Farm or The Grand Tour. Does he deserve to lose his job at ITV as well?

Clarkson has apologised for any offense his comments caused and that should be enough. As a society, we believe in the possibility of redemption for hardened criminals. Why can’t we extend the same charity to someone whose only crime is to have said something offensive?

We’d love to get the number of signatures up to 75,000. Please sign it here and share it with your friends. We need to send a message that it’s time to cancel cancel culture.

Meta to reinstate Donald Trump (for now…)

Facebook and Instagram parent Meta has finally decided to reinstate the accounts of former President Donald Trump “in the coming weeks”, two years after his suspension in the wake of the civil unrest in Washington on 6th January 2021 (Guardian, iNews, Mail, Sky News, Telegraph, Times). An announcement regarding Mr Trump’s accounts had been expected for some time, with reinstatement looking likely. Speaking in October, for instance, Meta’s President of Global Affairs, Sir Nick Clegg, said: “We believe that any private company – and this is really regardless of one’s personal views about Donald Trump – should tread with great thoughtfulness when seeking to, basically, silence political views.” (FT)

Self-deprecating as ever, Mr Trump responded via his own Truth Social social media platform with the following statement: “Facebook, which has lost billions of dollars in value since ‘deplatforming’ your favourite president, me, has just announced that they are reinstating my account. Such a thing should never again happen to a sitting president, or anybody else who is not deserving of retribution.”

Meta originally handed Mr Trump an indefinite ban from both Facebook and Instagram in January 2021, accusing him of using their platforms to incite a “violent insurrection against a democratically elected government” (Telegraph). However, the decision was subsequently referred to the company’s Oversight Board. Despite upholding the decision to ban the former president, the board also criticised Meta’s decision to do so indefinitely, describing this as a “vague, standardless penalty” and noting that in doing so the company had deviated from its normal penalties.

In response, the company announced that Trump’s suspension would be in place for two years (i.e., until this month) and that it would “look to experts” to help it decide whether to reinstate him after that.

On Wednesday, Sir Nick announced Trump’s accounts would be restored. “The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying – the good, the bad and the ugly – so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” he said.

Brendan O’Neill wasn’t particularly impressed. He thought he’d feel some relief “when the social media giant came to its senses”. Yet now that it’s happened – “now that Meta has decreed that Trump has served his time in the virtual wilderness” – all that he says he’s been left with is a sense of disquiet about “the historically unprecedented dominion this small clique of the woke rich enjoys over the liberty to utter”. (Spiked).

Author and free speech campaigner Jacob Mchangama was more optimistic. Meta had made the right decision, he said, not least because of the emphasis the company’s statement seemed to place on its users’ rights to access information. Suppressing free speech is a “double wrong”, he continued, because it violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. Even if Trump’s rhetoric “fires up his supporters”, knowing what he’s thinking, and being able to criticise what he’s saying, is “likely a net advantage to democracy”. Anthony Romero, ACLU’s Executive Director, concurred. Our “collective ability to speak – and hear the speech of others – online,” he said, was important, and the biggest social media companies should therefore “err on the side of allowing a wide range of political speech, even when it offends”.

Is the company’s position a reflection of Mark Zuckerberg’s stated belief that Meta is a “champion of free speech” (New York Times)? It’s certainly a point Sir Nick was keen to return to while doing the media rounds in the wake of the announcement. Asked by NBC News why Meta was reinstating Mr Trump he said: “We’re not trying to censor everything that everyone says in an open and free democracy. We think that open and free debate on the rough and tumble of democratic debate should play out on Facebook and Instagram as much as anywhere else.”

Some left-leaning politicians and civil rights organisations denounced Meta’s decision. They argued that Jacob Mchangama’s “double wrong” of restricting speech and suppressing information is a price worth paying because some views (usually those that they happen not to like) are too dangerous for anyone to hear. Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, for instance, said that by allowing Donald Trump a platform, Mr Zuckerberg was “destroying our democracy”. The Anti-Defamation League claimed the company had chosen to “platform bigotry and divisiveness”. The NAACP, meanwhile, was “astonished” by the decision to re-platform someone who “can spew hatred, fuel conspiracies, and incite a volent insurrection at our nation’s Capitol building”. And so on and so forth.

Maybe they shouldn’t get too worked up. For all its stirring talk about the importance of free speech, Sir Nick’s statement did go on to caution that Trump’s accounts would be reinstated with “new guardrails in place” to deter him from saying anything too inflammatory in future. “In the event that [the former President] posts further violating content,” he said, “the content will be removed, and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation.” Because the ‘violating content’ in question is any content that ‘delegitimises’ an upcoming election or is related to the QAnon conspiracy theory, it’s probably safe to say that Donald Trump’s second stint on Facebook will likely prove a whistlestop affair.

According to US campaign group Media Matters, nearly half of Donald Trump’s recent social media posts on his own social media platform pushed election fraud claims or amplified QAnon content. A similar report by Accountable Tech calculated that over the past six months, Trump’s Truth Social posts would have broken Facebook’s rules more than 350 times – the equivalent of nearly two prohibited posts a day.

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

Communications Officer

Weekly news-round up

19th January 2023

Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join, and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this newsletter to help us spread the word. If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.

Gender Conversion Ban

The Government announced this week that it would legislate to ban conversion therapy relating to gender identity as well as sexuality, with a draft bill to be introduced shortly (BBC, Guardian, Mail, Reuters, Telegraph, Times).

The news comes almost a year after Boris Johnson’s Government said there was too much “complexity” for transgender people to be covered by the ban, and that assessment is shared by a number of senior MPs and ministers (Guardian, iNews, Times).

According to the former Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, for instance, it will be “difficult to phrase this Bill without unintended consequences in a highly complex area”. Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is ultimately responsible for the Bill, pointed out that “many people do not understand how complex this area is” (Telegraph). In a written ministerial statement announcing the imminent publication of the draft Bill, Culture Secretary Michele Donelan warned: “this is a complex area” and “[t]he legislation must not, through a lack of clarity, harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress”.

At first glance, talk of ‘complexity’ might seem a little odd. After all, most people would agree that trying to forcibly change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – perhaps through pseudo-scientific quack ‘treatments’ – is wrong and should be outlawed.

But the fact is we already have a criminal law framework that prohibits offences of “physical or sexual violence”, including provisions for aggravated offences in cases where a criminal act is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s protected characteristics and they include sexual orientation and transgender identity.

There is also very little evidence that conversion therapy of the conventional type is widespread in the UK. Indeed, when the Government asked a research team from Coventry University to study the evidence on conversion therapy the only examples it was able to find were drawn from the US. As Mark Jenkinson, the Tory MP for Workington put it: “From all the published evidence, it is clear that current laws are sufficient to cover the vanishingly rare number of cases of conversion therapy.” (Telegraph)

Where the ‘complexity’ will come into play, however, will be in determining what is – or should be – meant by ‘conversion therapy’. At present, that term is too vaguely defined to form the basis of a workable new law, and if it remains devoid of precise, technical meaning – if its meaning can be extended to encompass whatever trans rights activists want it to mean – then any such law will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech.

The warning signs were already there when the prospect of a bill banning conversion therapy first came up under Theresa May’s administration, where it was clear that any attempt to change ‘gender identity’ (not just ‘sexual orientation’) could be considered a form of ‘conversion therapy’. At the same time, little attempt was made to define what ‘gender identity’ meant, which is a particularly acute problem given that it can mean different things depending on whether the context is scientific, medical, sociological or legal.

If the new bill comes before Parliament in similar form, it will bring with it the risk that various legitimate medical activities – such as referring a young person with a history of mental illness who identifies as trans to a psychotherapist before they decide to embark on an irreversible medical pathway – might fall foul of a legal ban on ‘conversion therapy’.

As Kemi Badenoch has pointed out, it’s even possible that a poorly-drafted bill would bring conversations between parents and their children within scope of the ban, effectively meaning parents who attempted to dissuade their child from taking puberty blockers could be prosecuted (Times).

The obvious danger is that without appropriate – and ‘complex’ – definitional work, limiting the scope of the ban, the legislation will allow the state to police conversations between parents and children, as well as force clinicians to rule out treatment that in their professional view is in the best interests of their patients.

It would be an infringement of a clinician’s right to free speech and not in the interests of their patients to legally prohibit one possible diagnosis and, in some cases, force them to break their Hippocratic Oath. Clinical professionals have both a right and a duty to recommend what in their judgment is the best clinical pathway for a patient who identifies as trans, particularly if that patient is a minor.

Consider a condition like gender dysphoria, currently defined by the NHS as “a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity”. For trans activists and ideologically aligned therapists, this is an innate feeling that must simply be ‘affirmed’, with the young patient’s problems potentially being solved by helping them to ‘admit’ that they’re transgender. Anything less, in their view, would be transphobic and something they would like to fall foul of a conversion therapy ban. Yet for many other medical professionals, research on and around gender identity is still in its infancy, and it cannot be ruled out that in some cases identifying as trans may be symptomatic of a mental disorder – ‘gender dysphoria’ still appears in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Bible of the American psychiatric profession.

Nor can it be ruled out that an adolescent who identifies as trans and wants to embark on transitioning is simply being swept along by a trend within their peer group or on social media and, if they’re not persuaded to wait before undergoing any medical procedures, such as a double mastectomy, may come to regret it. Is it really in the best interests of such children to criminalise attempts by parents or clinicians to make them pause and reflect before permanently changing their bodies?

The government does at least seem alive to these dangers.

Culture Secretary Michele Donelan has said that the draft bill “will protect everyone, including those targeted on the basis of their sexuality or being transgender”, but expressed the hope that during pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill experts in this area will make sure the legislation doesn’t “harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress, through inadvertently criminalising or chilling legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children”. Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is ultimately responsible for the bill, has also acknowledged that framing the law will be ‘difficult’ and has committed to ‘stringent’ pre-legislative scrutiny.

Initially, the Government will respond to the public consultation that was launched by Liz Truss in 2021 when she was Equalities Minister, and closed last February. (You can read the FSU’s submission to that consultation here.) After that Ms Badenoch will publish a draft bill. The Government then intends to form a joint committee of MPs and peers from across the parties to scrutinise draft legislation before it is introduced to Parliament (Times).

We’re asking our members to use our campaigning tool to send an email to their MPs raising their concerns about the negative impact of a poorly-drafted conversion therapy bill on free speech. You can find the tool here. Please do fill in the details and contact your MP. It only takes a couple of minutes.

Regional Speakeasies – book your tickets here

If you’re intending to come to our first live events of 2023, then please book your places now – because these events are open to the public, they are likely to sell out.

Our latest crop of Regional Speakeasies began last night in Cardiff, and we’re heading to Manchester on 25th January and then Edinburgh the following day.

Our speaker in Manchester is Thomas Harris, the FSU’s Director of Data and Impact. Tom joined the FSU from the corporate sector, where he had become increasingly alarmed by the embedding of ‘woke’ ideas within management structures and workplace culture. He now plays a vital role in helping the FSU understand the ideological capture of so many of our institutions, helping to shape our response to future political and cultural trends. Tom will be exploring questions like: Which professions and sectors of employment are the worst for free speech? Who is most likely to need our help? What are the most effective responses to members’ travails? How can we campaign most effectively? How can we keep on growing, so that we can help even more individuals and increase our ability to defend freedom of speech?

In Edinburgh, Fraser Hudghton, the FSU’s Director of Case Management and FSU Scotland Director, will be joined by renowned political commentator and author Iain Macwhirter. There is clearly plenty to discuss right now about Scottish politics and we anticipate a lively evening with plenty of time for audience involvement. We have extra capacity in the venue, so do spread the word to members and non-members alike, using this link.

Debating Free Speech and the Right to Protest – book your tickets here!

London members can gather at our first In-Depth Debate of the year on Monday 23rd January. (Non-members are also welcome). The event takes place at the wonderful Art Workers’ Guild in Bloomsbury, and it’s a great opportunity to hear from all sides of one of the most fraught debates of the current moment – how to balance the right to protest with the right of other citizens to go about their lives. Should all ‘speech’ be protected, even if it’s speech intended to stop your opponents exercising their rights? Is the right to privacy acquiring too much weight relative to the right to free speech? When does speech become protest? These fascinating and important questions will be thrashed out by our excellent panel of speakers and, of course, the audience. You can click here to book your tickets for this live, in-person event. We would love to have as many of you as possible with us in the room, but if you can’t make it in-person, you can still listen in by joining our Zoom link-up.

Jeremy Clarkson: Latest Victim of Cancel Culture

Following reports that ITV is thinking of firing Jeremy Clarkson as host of Who Wants to be a Millionaire (Mail), our General Secretary, Toby Young, has written to Dame Carolyn McCall, the CEO of ITV, urging her to reconsider. Sacking Clarkson would be cancel culture at its most brutal, destroying a person’s livelihood because they’ve said something perfectly lawful, but which someone who thinks of themselves as a ‘victim’ finds offensive.

Clarkson has apologised for any offence he caused and that should be enough. As FSU Deputy Case Director Ben Jones pointed out on Talk TV this week, as a society we believe in the possibility of redemption for hardened criminals. Why can’t we extend the same charity to someone whose only crime is to have said something offensive?

You can read the letter here.

Caledonian Fellowship – applications now open

The Caledonian Fellowship is an award given by the Common Sense Society, and brings together recent undergraduates, graduates, and young professionals who have “demonstrated achievement in their professional or field of study” and who are “committed to preserving and advancing the principles of liberty, prosperity, and beauty”. Over six days of seminars with renowned scholars, Fellows explore the foundational principles of Western civilisation and culture, with a special emphasis on the thinkers and ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment. All materials, accommodation and meals are provided during the programme. Any up-and-coming young FSU members who fit the bill and would like to take part can apply here. The seminars take place on September 10th-15th, and the deadline for applications is May 20th.

In Conversation – FSU international

As many members may already know, the FSU has a growing family of overseas sister organisations. Earlier this week, Toby was joined by Sara Gon, Director of FSU South Africa, and Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of FSU New Zealand, to discuss a wide range of topics including how free speech is curtailed in the media, the importance of hearing contrary opinions, and the commonalities experienced by our respective organisations. The video is available in full on our YouTube channel – the link is here.

Academic Freedom and Free speech – Toby Young to give annual NCUP lecture

The FSU’s General Secretary will be at King’s College London’s Gordon Museum of Pathology on 28th February to give the annual National Conference of University Professors (NCUP) education lecture. The title of the talk is ‘Free Speech in Universities’, and you can register for tickets here.

SLAPPs – join the fightback and show your support for two crowdfunders

The UK Government is increasingly concerned that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – or ‘Slapps’ as they are more commonly known – represent a growing threat to free speech within the law and the rule of law, which are fundamental parts of the democratic tradition. And with good reason. According to the Times, Britain is now the “global capital for Slapps, with more court cases initiated here than in America and the European Union combined”.

The complicated acronym in fact hides a remarkably simple tactic. According to the Ministry of Justice’s recent consultation on the challenges presented by the increasing use of this form of litigation, Slapps are libel or privacy cases brought by wealthy companies or individuals where the primary objective is not to win the legal action – which may in fact be all but guaranteed to fail – but to “harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means”.

It’s in this context that the FSU has decided to share details of legal crowdfunders set up by two separate parties – Andrew Burgess and Vanessa Warwick. Both Andrew and Vanessa are currently being sued by the same person for defamation in what look like Slapp cases. The person bringing the lawsuits is Samuel Leeds, the man behind Property Investors, a company that was the subject of a recent BBC ‘Inside Out’ investigation. While we do not necessarily accept either defendant’s view of their respective cases – that is a matter for the Court – we believe that they should have a fighting chance of being able to defend themselves. To find out more about each case and to show your support should you want to give it, click here and here.

Politically motivated financial censorship – a call for information

The FSU needs your help. We’re looking for information regarding any examples of politically motivated financial censorship that you, or anyone you know, may have heard about or directly experienced. Here’s why.

In the wake of PayPal’s attempted demonetisation of the FSU last summer, Sally-Ann Hart and Andrew Lewer tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The amendment addressed “refusal to provide services for reasons connected with freedom of expression” and stated that: “No payment service provider providing a relevant service may refuse to supply that service to any other person in the United Kingdom if the reason for the refusal is significantly related to the customer exercising his or her right to freedom of expression.”

At the time, Andrew Griffith, the Economic Secretary of the Treasury and the Minister responsible for the Bill, said he “empathise[d] strongly with colleagues’ concerns on the principled issue and potential risks – of protecting customers’ freedom of expression – and whether or not it is possible for service providers with significant market positions to terminate customer relationships at will and at speed”.

However, the amendment was subsequently withdrawn after Mr Griffith promised that the issues it sought to address would be included in the terms of reference of a forthcoming statutory consultation about the Payment Services Regulations.

That consultation has now begun, and it’s great to see that it will cover the regulatory framework currently applied to over 1,000 firms authorised as payment and e-money services in the UK (Reuters). The existing rules, which Britain adopted when part of the European Union, already require payment companies to give customers notice when they terminate an account, but, as per the agreement with Ms Hart and Mr Lewer, the Review will now assess whether clearer guidelines are needed on when companies can withhold or withdraw services from customers and will pay particular attention to the issue of politically motivated financial censorship in its terms of reference.

We think this could be an important moment – the Government appears keen to keep an open-mind on the matter, which means there is now a window of opportunity for us to shape an aspect of public policy that will help to check the creeping trend towards a Chinese-style social system in countries like ours.

On the subject of the Government’s open-mind, it’s particularly encouraging to see that in the consultation (which you can access here), the Government makes it “very clear” that “the legitimate expression of differing views, is an important British liberty”, that it “does not support ‘cancel culture’”, and that “regulations must respect the balance of rights between users’ and service providers’ obligations, including in relation to protecting the freedom of expression of anyone expressing lawful views”.

In order to provide the Government with as many examples of politically motivated financial censorship as we can, we’re asking our members and supporters to send us any examples they may have come across, particularly if it involves them. To be clear, we’re after examples of financial services companies (such as a high street bank), payment processors (like PayPal) and crowdfunding platforms (IndieGoGo) either withholding or withdrawing services from customers because they don’t like their perfectly lawful views.

You can get in touch via our email address: [email protected]. Alternatively, you can direct message us on Facebook (here), Instagram (here) or Twitter (here).

Best wishes,

Freddie Attenborough

Communications Officer

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.