Oxford law don Julius Grower has written an open letter in the Critic to Mark Ferguson, a midwit Labour MP who said in last week’s House of Commons debate about the free speech crisis afflicting English universities that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act which Labour has refused to implement is “a charter for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Holocaust deniers and vaccine deniers to wander our universities freely”.
Here’s how it begins:
My name is Julius Grower, and I am an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford. I am writing to you having seen your contribution to the debate around the urgent question, asked today in the House of Commons, about freedom of speech in universities.
Towards the end of your remarks, you said: “Would my honourable friend [the Minister] agree with me that the party opposite’s position is in fact a charter for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Holocaust deniers, and vaccine deniers to wander our universities freely?”
I am afraid that your comments show a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the law upon which you commented, which I feel compelled to correct. You may very well have reasons for supporting the Government’s (I think, woeful) decision — condemned so far by over 650 academics, including 7 Nobel Prize laureates and a Fields Medallist — to pause the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. But the reasons you expressed today are fundamentally flawed ones. It is incumbent on you to do better
1. It is not a Tory charter
By the end of its time in Parliament, and, in particular, by the time it was being debated in great detail in the House of Lords, the then Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill had received, in principle, cross-party support. If you are in any doubt as to that fact, you should speak with Lord Collins of Highbury, who was the relevant Labour shadow minister in the Lords at that time.
2. It does not protect Holocaust denial
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 does not purport to change the scope of the law on what is free to be said in English and Welsh universities. This point was expressly raised a number of times in the House of Lords, and was expressly responded to by the (then) Government. No one has seriously suggested otherwise since. Indeed, if you need confirmation of that, please read Akua Reindorf KC’s article in the Times Higher Education supplement. No lawyer has, as far as I am aware, suggested that she is wrong in saying what she has.
The definition of freedom of speech in the Act is expressly said to be that covered by Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998). Article 10(1) is plainly and uncontrovertibly qualified by Article 10(2) and by Article 17. Furthermore, Article 17 has been interpreted by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, as specifically excluding Holocaust denial from the right to any legal protection. Again, please see Reindorf KC’s article if you need confirmation of this. Ms Reindorf is an Equality and Human Rights Commissioner and an expert in equality and human rights law. She is correct in what she says.
Incidentally, although I do not think I should have to say this in order for my points to be taken seriously, it seems appropriate to make clear that I myself am Jewish, and am acutely aware of the problems of anti-semitism on our campuses. However, I believe that the solution to that issue is to give effect to legislation which will more effectively allow Jews and Zionists to hold their own events on campuses, and stop them from being closed down by murky threats made by mobs. Unfortunately, as we have just seen with Suella Braveman’s cancelled talk in Cambridge, this is precisely what is happening under the current (unreformed) regulatory regime.
3. It does not protect Hizb ut-Tahrir’s speech
It is not wholly clear from your remarks what you meant by the law being a “charter” for Hizb ut-Tahrir. Clearly it is not legislation which alters the fact that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a proscribed organisation. I assume therefore that you meant that the Act would cover – and allow for the promotion of – Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology. This is, once again, entirely false. Expressing support for Hizb ut-Tahrir, and spreading or supporting their hateful ideology, is a criminal offence. People can go to prison for doing so. As said above, nothing about the 2023 Act changed (or even purported to change) the scope of what can and cannot be said as a matter of English law, whether within or without universities. Section 1(2) of the Act refers to “freedom of speech within the law”. The key words there are: “within the law”. Praising/expressing support for/promoting the propaganda of a terrorist organisation is unlawful speech and thus not covered by the Act. Even if you are not a lawyer, this should, I’m afraid, have been obvious to you upon even a cursory reading of the legislation.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: A leading academic had to leave his post as head of a department at Kings College London and emigrate to Australia because he wrote a pro-Brexit article. The Mail has more.
Stop Press 2: Suella Braverman has warned that the cancellation of her speaking event at Cambridge is symptomatic of a wider free speech crisis in our universities. The Sunday Times has more.
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.
Even if masks worked so many people wear them improperly – but no-one calls them out.
I’ve seen people wear the mask under their nose, poorly fitted with big gaps at the sides, and over bushy beards. No-one calls them out because most people don’t believe they work. They are only a sign of social compliance.
I was in Paris towards the end of the pandemic when it was still compulsory to wear a mask on the metro.
My usual sunflower lanyard trick was clearly no use in France so I carried a mask that I slid over my chin after boarding a carriage. My mouth and nose was completely uncovered.
Nobody ever said anything.
The whole thing was a joke.
So many countries were bought and paid for, France being one of them.
They are also a sign of fear of the unknown, because we have all been lied to by the medical experts we depend on to keep us safe. Birx, and Tony to name two. I am sure the Uk has its own “medical experts” who delivered misinformation to their fellow countrymen/women.
Dr Craig should point out that there was NO PANDEMIC, it was unleashed for other nefarious purposes. It had nothing to do with health. It was killing and compliance. Oh and directing money to the elites from taxpayers.
It was a plandemic. And boy did it cause a tsunami.
I remember thinking and writing at the time that the logical next step would be to treat other respiratory illnesses like “covid”. Another conspiracy theory.
Let’s face it. We just don’t know how these diseases spread. Too many variables.
From.the moment that they are incapable of explaining why some people get sick and others don’t when seemingly subjected to very similar exposure/conditions, they don’t know anything.
It’s all speculation.
I’m not sure that’s right. Everyone has a unique immune system based on their age, general health and their previous exposure to infection. Two people exposed to a virus in the same circumstances may react differently according the ability of the immune system to mount a defence.
Remember the ‘Diamond Princess’ cruise ship placed in quarantine, despite equal exposure on board to SCov2 a good percentage of people remained well even though they must have been exposed to the virus. Their immune systems were already primed by previous corona virus infections.
The entire reason why some and infected and some are not is probably entirely controlled by vitamin D levels and the immune response. Almost everyone in Britain has very low Vit. D levels in winter, and lowish the rest of the year because we don’t have enough sunlight this far North. People I know and I, who take 1000 iu supplement every day simply do not get ill, at least very rarely. Many others who do not get ill often. Why the Government do not give supplements to everyone is odd, it would save the NHS billions at very low cost. If they had Covid would have been very minor, perhaps that is why!
A lot it is managerial syllogism; “something must be done”, etc. Not based on real evidence, and exploiting the lack of proper education for many of us, unfortunately. A good job, well done, Care!
And the self important waste of space that is Bridget Phillipson is aiming to ensure a lack of proper education will be enshrined in law…. Thank F**k I have no grandchildren.
John
Sadly our politicians are exponents of”not based on real evidence”.
This present government are masters of the art of opinion not based on fact or understanding.
Don’t give them any credit, they are simply thick as mince and brain dead with it!
As the mask mandate came in I went to a haberdashery and bought some gauze and elastic to make my own cloth mask.
Why?
This sort of statement just kills me.
The modern obsession with “making the world better” is nauseating Everyone seems to have a grand scheme of how to make the world a better place and more often than not it involves telling others what to do.
If you really want to make the world a better place I’ve got the perfect formula. It’s not easy but with effort it can be achieved. It’s simple but hard: don’t be an asshole. That’s it. Every day, as you get on with your life avoid being an asshole. Look after yourself, do what’s best for you and your friends and family but do it without being an asshole to someone else.
If everyone did that, big if, we’d have a great world.
Meanwhile, big schemes to make the world better typically end up causing misery. Not always but often.
If the resources wasted on covid along with that being wasted on global warming had not been stolen from the people and businesses in taxes everyone would have been able to spend it themselves much better.
So true
Money wasn’t wasted on the C1984 and global warming they were the excuses. Huge sums were diverted to the elites via big corporations and especially the pharmaceuticals. The reasons given for the expenditure are irrelevant – PPE, Track and Trace, “vaccines”, covid marshalls etc etc. Spend, spend, spend was the order of the day. The intention was to generate debt, so much debt that we are where we are now. And the solution is to carry on wasting money but now we have to believe that we are responsible and must repay all the borrowing.
As clear as day we are being manoeuvred to the point where the country has to declare bankruptcy and at that point it will be a case of fight or submit – Kneel before Kneel.
The 1689 Bill of Rights is on similar lines regarding a small state and only when causing other people harm, should the Law intervene. Real harm, not the implied hurt feelings in today’s “be kind” fascism.
Also what was with all those TOK-TOK dancing nurses, if they want to portray C19 as a deadly pandemic then faffing around empty wards doesn’t garner confidence.
I always asked mask fanatics “if you’re wearing your magic mask, why does it matter that I’m not – unless masks don’t actually work?” I never received a credible answer.
Masks were just symbols of fear, control and compliance.
Hence that silly argument that masks were worn to protect people other than the wearer. It nudged the hesitant into compliance, just in case the argument was valid.
Dr.Craig, thank you for your words of wisdom. You have worked so hard these past four years in presenting the truth. It is very much appreciated.