The Free Speech Union has launched its judicial review of the Government’s decision to ‘pause’ the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, naming Professor Arif Ahmed, the Government’s ‘free speech tsar’ as an ‘interested party’. The Telegraph has more.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson last month halted the introduction of the legislation, aimed at forcing universities to actively promote free speech on campus, just days before it was due to come into force.
She announced she was pulling the plug on the flagship Tory policy, and said she will now consider repealing it.
Ms. Phillipson’s announcement to shelve the law threw Prof Ahmed’s position into doubt. While he is still formally employed as a director at the university watchdog the Office for Students (OfS), the complaints system he was meant to oversee now faces uncertainty and could be axed altogether.
He has spent the past year designing the complaints scheme, which would have allowed him to take submissions from academics who had been “cancelled” over their personal beliefs.
Prof Ahmed had been due to oversee all the OfS free speech functions, including carrying out investigations into universities that have been accused of breaching their duties under the act, which also gives the OfS the power to impose fines.
Since Ms. Phillipson’s announcement, Prof Ahmed, a former philosophy professor at Cambridge University and outspoken champion of free speech, has not issued any public statements.
But legal documents, seen by the Telegraph, reveal that Prof Ahmed has been named as an “interested party” on an application for a judicial review of Ms. Phillipson’s decision.
This means he will have the opportunity to take part in the Free Speech Union’s (FSU) legal challenge of the Government’s decision to halt the introduction of the bill.
Prof Ahmed, a former member of the advisory council at the FSU, will be able to make written submissions to the High Court and also appear in person with a barrister to challenge the Government on its arguments.
The development will be seen as highly embarrassing for ministers, as it now leaves them open to criticism in court from their own free speech tsar.
The OfS is also named on the document as an “interested party”, meaning it is directly affected by the claim.
The FSU launched a legal challenge against Ms. Phillipson, saying that the Government’s decision to “kill off” the legislation would make it “virtually impossible for students and academics to challenge radical progressive ideology on campus”.
Bryn Harris, the FSU’s Chief Legal Counsel, said: “The Free Speech Union has formally commenced legal proceedings against the Government following its revocation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
“These proceedings are of the highest constitutional importance. For almost 350 years, the governance of this country has rested on a golden premise: ministers of the Crown may not set aside the law made by Parliament.
“We say that a new government, flushed with power and ideological fervour, has thrown that rule to the wind. We believe the law is clear: our fundamental right to free speech, as protected by our sovereign Parliament, cannot be treated with such cavalier contempt.”
Worth reading in full.
You can contribute to the crowdfunder the FSU has set up to help with the legal costs of this case here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It could accelerate quite a bit. Those of us (like me) that have granted direct debit usually forget about it and let them grab the cash. No doubt it’s well understood that DD helps to maintain revenue. I was the treasurer of a an organisation for several years that manifested that effect. Very few new members that granted DD dropped out annually.
You can cancel your DD and apply for the return of any over payment.
I don’t even bother to self declare anymore. They send (obvious by the envelope) BBC threatening letters every couple of months which I take great joy in throwing away unopened these days.
I’ve not paid the BBC extortion for at least 15 years and before that it was only because my house mate wanted to watch TV and had an annoying habit of opening the door to randoms.
I responded to a “thank you for donating” email from Toby Young back in May with a quip about the BBC sending monthly threats for not using their service.
6 days later, and after years of no-one visiting in-person, an “officer” put a note through my door and sat in his car outside my house. In a remote location on a dead end road, this sort of activity stands out. I went out to take some pictures and a shabby bloke with an Eastern European accent confirmed he was from TV licensing. Rather than quizzing me about a TV, he got back in his car and drove away. No more letters so far.
Nor should you self declare. You don’t have to let Tescos know that you won’t be shopping with them.
You only need a TV licence for watching or recording live TV (broadcast, satellite or live streamed) and using iPlayer. You don’t need one for catch-up of ITV, etc.
Propaganda by coercion or propaganda by subscription? I prefer the latter because it’s easier to ignore. We only need to look at the criticism of the content to see that the brand recognition and reputation are a facade.
“BBC: Brainwashing Britain?” by David Sedgwick is quite a good read.
“… costing the BBC £430 a million a year.”
Cost is an outlay, what is happening to the BBC is a loss in revenue. There is a difference.
Apologies for repeating myself, but earlier this year I made a civil claim against the BBC for harrassment for continuing to send threatening letters after a visit from an “enforcement officer”. It was amazing that every letter or email they sent contained a lie. The culture of lies and disinformation obviously permeated all the way down to poor old Donna in Customer Relations. She couldn’t seem to help it! Any way they paid me £450…
Well done
Cheers
Brilliant!
Good.
The People´s Revolt has begun.
BBC is headed the way of Coutt´s bank and Costa coffee.
And good riddance.
Didn’t stop them giving Huw Edward’s a big old pay rise though just days before the shite hit the fan..
This is a good news story, but we need to be careful what we wish for. I believe in Aus, the licence fee was removed and instead the Gov now centrally funds it through normal taxation!
Then it will be no longer able to claim impartiality and people will see it as nothing more than a medium of government propaganda.
If it cannot control its bias then we must take its scalp.
I already pay somebody to put garbage out( the council) – I ain’t paying the BBC for the same.
The reason I cancelled my licence fee direct debit this year is due to the outright lies that are being presented as facts on the news (eg climate change related issues) and also the introduction of stress inducing beats throughout news programs on TV and radio. This is something that began just a couple of years ago. So even though the BBC does produce some excellent programs, I would not subscribe due to these issues.
The BBC is the mouthpiece of Satan.
I remember celebrating John Majors election victory outside Conservative HQ in Smith square. Whenever a BBC reporter tried to interview anyone a chant went up of “privatise the BBC”. Every time I read or hear the latest tosh from the BBC I think back to that moment. It really is time now.
Not paying the TV propaganda tax and not voting for any establishment party is surely the duty of everyone who believes in free speech, the nation state, liberty and freedom. They have gone rogue and thus no longer can enjoy our support and consent.