Nigel Biggar and I wrote a joint op-ed for the Telegraph yesterday to coincide with our introduction into the House of Lords. I’ve republished it below in full.
Freedom of speech is valuable, but not merely for letting individuals say whatever they fancy within the law. It’s valuable primarily for the sake of the public good. For if dominant orthodoxies are false, misshape public policy, and go unchecked, we all suffer. Free speech allows us to interrogate reigning ideological emperors – on race, transgender, colonialism, public health and climate change, among others – to find out if their new clothes are a reality or a dangerous illusion.
On transgender self-identification, there’s plenty of reason to doubt its intellectual coherence. When a biological male believes his inner, authentic self is female, what exactly does he think being ‘female’ is? How is he not trading on gender stereotypes that feminists taught us to abandon decades ago?
As Dame Hilary Cass’s report has argued, there’s even more reason to doubt that the health of young people is well served by uncritically allowing them to align their bodies with their imagined genders by making irrevocable physical changes. Or – as J.K. Rowling has long been contending – that the safety of women in changing-rooms and toilets should be jeopardised by forcing them to suffer the presence of men who happen to identify as female.
On race, ‘progressive’ anti-racism threatens to deepen racial alienation and conflict in Britain by importing radically pessimistic American ideas, rooted in America’s history, that espouse a dualist opposition between ‘white’ and ‘black’, seeing ‘whiteness’ as irredeemably racist. People should not be penalised for expressing such ideas, but nor should they be for advocating Martin Luther King’s approach, namely, that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin.
As the report of Lord Sewell’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities argued in March 2021, Critical Race Theory doesn’t map onto the complex realities of race in contemporary Britain, which include considerable elements of progress and signs of hope. We should not lose sight of the fact that Britain is one of the least racist countries in the world – one reason so many black and brown refugees want to come here.
On colonialism, the reduction of the history of the British Empire to a cartoonish litany of racism and oppression is not only historically and morally insupportable; it trashes an important part of the record of the West, corroding faith in it. It puts wind in the sails of Scottish separatists who justify the disintegration of the United Kingdom as an act of repentance from an evil, British, imperial past. It makes the surrender of the strategically important Chagos Islands seem like the decent thing to do. And it exposes U.K. taxpayers to Caribbean claims of £18 trillion reparations for historic slavery, and, according to a recent Oxfam report, a further £53 trillion in reparations for the colonial exploitation of India.
It‘s vital people should have the freedom to challenge these dogmas, just as we should the received wisdom in public health and climate change. That’s not because it’s wrong, necessarily, but because without subjecting metropolitan groupthink to scrutiny and debate we could be saddling ourselves with destructive policies that harm the interests of the United Kingdom, as well as jeopardising the liberal values we all want to defend.
Our freedom to express doubts about, to question, and to contradict reigning orthodoxies is vital for the public good. It’s vital for the political triumph of truths important for the mental well-being of children, the physical safety of women, the building of a harmonious multi-racial society, the effective remedy of unfair disadvantages between ethnic groups, the survival of the United Kingdom, the self-confidence of the West, and justified resistance to opportunistic claims of reparations for slavery and colonialism.
Of all our current political leaders, only one has a consistent record of grasping the importance of what’s at stake here: Kemi Badenoch. As women and equalities minister, Badenoch championed sex-based women’s rights and had the courage to take on the political indoctrination of children in schools. As minister for equalities, she backed the Sewell Commission and launched its report. And as international trade secretary, she rejected claims that Britain owes its economic prosperity to colonial exploitation, especially slavery.
Because we care so passionately about freedom of speech, we set up the Free Speech Union five years ago, a non-partisan public interest body that stands up for this vital human right. Since then, we’ve fought over 3,300 cases. The FSU was recently described as “far-Right” by Wikipedia, but 40% of those cases are gender critical women, almost all of whom identify as left-wing. Free speech is something people of all political persuasions should defend because without it we cannot defend any of our other rights. Kemi Badenoch has made it clear how much she cares about it by ennobling the two of us and we hope Britain’s other political leaders will soon come to realise its importance as well.
You can join the Free Speech Union 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.
you should have included Nigel Farage because he has been fair in his treatment of people, free of the “isms” and recently he has been the strongest proponent of free speech and accountability.
Well said, Your Lordships. Not coincidental that much of the scientific and technical progress underlying the modern world took place over the last two hundred years in countries that valued free speech. The 19th century Britain of Faraday, Maxwell and Brunel is a prime example.
Free speech fosters free and creative thought.
No comment.
It‘s vital people should have the freedom to challenge these dogmas, just as we should the received wisdom in public health and climate change. That’s not because it’s wrong, necessarily
Oh yes it is wrong!
Of all our current political leaders, only one has a consistent record of grasping the importance of what’s at stake here: Kemi Badenoch
I’m not convinced. I will never vote Tory.
It may well be that Kemi Badenoch is the only political leader who recognises the value of free speech… but can she inspire the rest of the Conservative Party to follow? Unless all Conservatives can stand resolutely behind her then the Party will dwindle into LibDem irreverence.
but can she inspire the rest of the Conservative Party to follow?
A very good point. At the moment, I don’t think that she can. But who knows. Circumstances change, and her (errant) MPs may come around to fully and enthusiastically supporting her.
I think a lot of people who claim to be pro-free speech are duplicitous as they only support free speech when it suits. People demonstrate this behaviour regularly on here but I think it’s a very widespread trait and maybe many don’t even know they’re behaving like hypocrites and demonstrating double-standards half the time. So it’s more like ‘free speech with caveats’. The people who like to wheel out the old ”I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it ” are the very same people who should have ”Offence is never given, only taken” written on their T-shirts, and live by it, but they don’t. They try to censor others or get all stroppy if you say something that gets their back up, usually accusing you of all sorts without a shred of evidence to support their claims. This behaviour is alive and well all over social media, as well as any online forums, probably because it’s easier to take the written word out of context, intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting what the other person is trying to communicate, as opposed to when we speak to people in real life, where any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be quickly straightened out.
Therefore, who better to quote on this topic than Ricky Gervais: ”Offence is the collateral damage of free speech” and ”Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right.”
There is no right to be not offended, at least yet!
It isn’t Free speech – but!
Freedom of Speech must be an absolute!
However, there is a downside – You can’t claim Freedom from consequence of Free Speech.
However, there is a downside – You can’t claim Freedom from consequence of Free Speech.
If you’re free to say whatever you like (free speech) but your next door neighbour is free to punch you in the face for how often he likes because of what you just said (consequences of your free speech), would you really say that you were actually free to say whatever you liked in the first place?
Freedom of speech means exactly freedom to speak without having to fear unrelated, negative consequences because if such unrelated, negative consequences might follow, a meaningful freedom of speech never existed.
This consequences stuff is just woke sophistry to hide that they’re adamantly opposed to freedom of speech for others, especially, less well-educated others.
Free speech within bounds of the laws limiting free speech is no free speech at all. It’s subject to arbitrary limits because laws are arbitrary as anything a parliamentary majority supports can become law. Toby Young and Nigel Biggar believe that a certain set of limits to so-called free speech is sensible. Diane Abbot and Jeremy Corbyn (chosen for no particular reason) very likely believe that a different set of limits to free speech is sensible. Both sets are arbitrary and which set ends up being enforced is merely a question of power – an example of might makes right – and not one of any higher principle.
For a practical current example where this leads to: For historical reasons, Germany is saddled with tight limits to political speech, principally, any kind of speech challenging the imposed political order of the FRG is illegal and political parties which do so may be prohibited. There’s presently a renewed push for outlawing the AfD before the next election by MdBs (Mitglied des Bundestages, German equivalent of MP) from the red/green parties also supported by the so-called German Institute for Human Rights. It’s claimed that the AfD would massively attack the imposed political order because it supports actually applying existing immigration laws, ie, deport illegal immigrants, especially, violent criminals who immigrated illegally. This is said to conflict with the first article of the German basic law which states that
Human dignity is inviolable. All organs of the state are duty-bound to respect and protect it.
The people seeking to outlaw the AfD claim that referring to foreign criminals who immigrated illegally and should be deported as foreign criminals who immigrated illegally and should be deported violates the human dignity of all foreigners by painting them all with the foreign criminals who immigrated illegally brush (a so-called dog whistle) and hence, the AfD must be prohibited. That this would conveniently eliminate a major political competitor of the parties whose MdBs are engaging in this is certainly just coincidence, because these very principled people whose morality is known to be of the highest order (to themselves and their supporters, mainly) would never even contemplate something that base.
The only to avoid this conundrum of competing interpretations of the same set of necessary limits to free speech by different groups of people who all believe that their particular interpretation is the only one which obviously makes sense is to have no such limits at all. If it’s not direct incitement to violence with the intention to cause such violence on the spot, it ought to be legal.
Well said
Agree, free speech is like sunlight and will disinfect anyway. Let us see those with malign intent who walk amongst us.
https://x.com/recusant_raja/status/1884191250535821474
More information on the Rape Gangs from Raja Miah.
I’m gobsmacked. Councils shouldn’t get to hide this stuff by deciding for themselves whether to call an enquiry
Congratulations on your elevation to the Lords. And well done for summarising the problems with the transgender self-identification, ‘progressive’ anti-racism and colonialism orthodoxies. But it’s unfortunate that you didn’t also do so regarding climate change where the accepted dogma insists that the climate is changing dangerously, that we’ve contributed to it and that we must do something to ‘fight’ it – at almost any cost. Yet it’s forbidden to mention the simple fact that, because most major countries – the source of over 80% of the dreaded emissions – have no intention of cutting their emissions, nothing we (the source of a mere 0.7%) might do would make the slightest practical difference to the global situation – i.e. our policy, as well as economically disastrous, is completely pointless.
Great article and as it argues, free speech benefits everyone. Imagine if in twenty years say, if human rights were changed: women were forbidden from the top jobs; we were disallowed from criticising the far right government of possibly the time; union rights were decimated; homosexuals were not allowed to marry; arts funding was only given to organisations which supported the far right; the British govt took us to war and we were disallowed from criticising it or critiquing it. In short, it’s in everyone’s interests to support free speech now and for the sake of our future citizens. Erode free speech rights now and it could well have even more disastrous consequences in the future – not just for centrist supporters but for supporters of the left too – as well as for people who support the right but not extreme right policies. Free speech benefits all across the political spectrum.
The “far right” features heavily in this comment and while I am politically involved I have to say that I have never yet met anybody from the “far right.” Mad left, yes I have met plenty. Perhaps some definitions would help.
Well, I have, and for more than one definition – certainly for supporters of the German red/green parties – I am – as dedicated monarchist and patriot – one of them. Being a monarchist is the original definition of “politically right”, BTW.
I take your point but what I was trying to say is that there is an argument to uphold free speech no matter your political leanings. I don’t think the left get that. They are obsessed with the far-right but if their fears ever came to pass, they too would need freedom of speech. The left should not be seeking to dismantle free speech laws because of trends in our time. Trends in future times might result in them wishing for unimpeded freedom of speech themselves. Personally, I think the far right to be largely a fiction in our country; it’s just creepy progressives who are habitually unfamiliar with reality who seem to think otherwise. And a lot of people seem to be making rather a lot of money out of this fiction.
Best to avoid using the term ‘far right’ as it is a term weaponised by leftists (there, I used one of my own!) to abuse anyone who disagrees with woke neo-liberalism. On this site people quite studiously insist on rejecting the intention of the political left to control political narratives via control and manipulation of language. Good Marxists that they are, to be sure.
If you’re standing on the north pole, movement in any direction is southwards. Likewise, these people are standing on the left pole and hence, anything else is right and thus wrong. At least, that’s their idea of it.
They’re not seeking to remove freedom of speech laws per se, they just want them to apply exclusively to them, because they’re the good guys and the bad guys mustn’t have any rights lest they abuse them to do bad stuff. Such as say something the woketards consider detrimental to their various good causes. Were I to state that Anybody who today claims to be a women should legally be treated as a women today in all aspects, that would be speech and my freedom of speech would guarantee that I may do so. However, if I instead claimed that sex is determined by biology, that men and women were always and will always be different and that different treatment for men and women in certain circumstance exists for a very good reason and ought to be kept, then, this wouldn’t be speech, but transphobic violence driving people to suicides and hence, it must be prohibited.
BTW, why homosexuals pretending to live in two person relationships should have access to tax breaks intended to support families with children eludes me. I understand that they certainly want that, because … well … more money is always nicer to have than less money, but that’s not what it was intended for and two people claiming to habitually have sex with each other and usually nobody else isn’t a public good worthy of any state support. That’s just another example of might makes right — the lobbying groups in favour of this had the political power to make it happen. But that’s all which was involved here.
Two great additions to the house of lords
“Of all our current political leaders, only one has a consistent record of grasping the importance of what’s at stake here: Kemi Badenoch.”
So in Toby and Nigel Bigger’s world, Farage is not “a current political leader?”
(No disagreement with the rest of the column and a Free Speech Union member.)
Congratulations on the Peerage! Although the House of Lords may not be around long enough for anything to be done.
In other words, fxxxk off and mind your own business