In a written statement to the House of Commons this morning, Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said the following:
I have written to colleagues… about my decision to stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal.
At present, my Free Speech Union colleagues and I are urgently trying to clarify what it is, exactly, Bridget Phillipson has done or is intending to do. She says in her statement that she has “written to colleagues”, but we’ve contacted numerous MPs on both sides of the House and no one has received a letter from the Secretary of State about the Freedom of Speech Act. I asked a press officer at the Department for Education if he could send me a copy of it, but he said the Department does not intend to publish it. I wonder which “colleagues” Phillipson has sent it to? Or if it actually exists? So much for the new Government’s commitment to ‘transparency’.
Nevertheless, it’s clear that Phillipson intends to do something to stop the Act dead in its tracks, which is a disaster. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was the one thing the Conservatives did in the last 14 years to defend freedom of speech. The reason the last government passed this Act was to address the free speech crisis in Britain’s universities (although it only applies in England). The Act does two things: it imposes a new legal duty on universities (and student unions) to uphold and promote free speech; and it creates two mechanisms to make sure they’re discharging this duty – a ‘free speech tsar’ in the Office for Students whom students, academics and visiting speakers can complain to if they think a university has breached their right to free speech, and a new statutory tort enabling them to sue a university if it’s flouted the new duty.
This decision gives the lie to the Government’s claim that it is committed to human rights. Freedom of speech is the most important human right of all because without it we cannot raise the alarm about any of our other rights being eroded. What it means is, the Government is committed to upholding those human rights it likes – such as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect to privacy and a family life), which has prevented so many violent criminals and illegal immigrants from being deported – but not those it doesn’t like, such as Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression).
I don’t need to rehearse here the reasons why this Act is so necessary. Daily Sceptic readers will need no convincing that free speech now plays second fiddle in Britain’s universities to the need to protect ‘vulnerable’ students – fashionable identity groups like Muslims and trans students, but not jews and gender critical women, obviously – from ‘microaggressions’, ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, i.e., hearing opinions they find disagreeable. But in case you aren’t aware of the full extent of the problem, see this Free Speech Union briefing on the subject.
I fear this brazen and shameless decision is just the beginning and the Government will attack free speech in countless other areas. Get ready for a Hate Crime Act in England and Wales, the criminalisation of ‘Islamophobia’ and an attempt to force newspapers and magazines to submit themselves to a state-controlled press regulator. I set out some more of these fears in a recent piece for Spiked.
The Free Speech Union intends to fight all these attacks on free speech, starting with Bridget Phillipson’s decision. If she intends to block those clauses in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act that were due to be activated on August 1st, as per a statutory instrument laid in the last parliament, we will bring judicial review proceedings against the Government. Stay tuned.
If you haven’t joined the Free Speech Union yet, you need to do so now. It is clear from Phillipson’s announcement that this Government has zero regard for free speech. We need to band together and defend it, otherwise the Government will start picking off its critics one by one.
If you’re already a member of the Free Speech Union, you can contribute to our Legal Fighting Fund here.
Stop Press: Claire Coutinho, the Conservative minister who steered the Freedom of Speech Act through parliament, has written an excellent piece in the Telegraph defending the Act and decrying Labour’s act of vandalism. Worth reading in full.
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.
Here is the Only Free Speech Act we need ——-(1) It’s Free (2) It is only Speech (3) The answer to all speech we don’t agree with is —-more Speech.
Exactly!
Yes but what I’d like to know is does such a thing as a “gender critical man” exist?
Because all I ever seem to read about are women/feminists that are ‘gender critical’…Maybe Toby should’ve wrote “gender critical people”, or better still “gender ideology critical people”.
I’m possibly overthinking this…
I really don’t think the phrase “gender critical” is helpful. I think “gender ideology critical” is better. I’m sure “gender ideology critical” men exist (I’m one) but they are possibly less vocal as probably most men don’t care if their male-only spaces are invaded by chicks with dicks and said chicks will not be winning medals in mens sport. I’m sure there are fathers who disapprove of “gender ideology” but the whole business of how this vile crap affects families with children going through this stuff seems to attract fewer headlines (though there was the sad story from Switzerland the other day). I know a few people who know people with kids affected by this, as far as I know neither parent is chuffed with it.
Well, yeah exactly. I think every man on here is critical, and elsewhere too. Billboard Chris is one example of a high profile ”gender ideology critical man”, but like most things I also don’t think it helpful to stick labels on everyone who speaks up in opposition to something so the people pushing the particular agenda ( always Leftards, let’s be honest ) can shove us in a convenient pigeon hole because we’re making an inconvenient nuisance of ourselves because we won’t shut up and put up. I just find it a bit odd how it’s always females that are lumped with the ”gender critical” label, and now even Toby’s doing it, despite the fact loads of men are in opposition to this harmful woke ideology.
I think you’re reading too much into his comment – I think it’s because the most high profile people who have taken flak for criticising the “gender” nonsense are women – Rowling and others.
But agree about labels.
Well Graham Linehan is another “gender ideology critical” bloke who springs to mind. And look at what he’s suffered for his outspokeness.
I guess I’m just trying to emphasise the point that one doesn’t need to identify as a feminist or even be female in order to speak up in defense of female sex-based rights and against this toxic, proven harmful ideology that’s damaging children and poses a threat to everybody, because the societal harms that it results in cannot be underestimated.
Good point about Linehan!
I agree!
Yes I was thinking of him myself. I must remind people, though, of his attacks on Count Dankular when he did his Nazi Pug stunt.
Gender criticial women/ feminists is a well-known label designating a certain group people reading articles by Toby Young will already have heard of. I don’t think this was meant to imply that only women are opposed to the trans-sense¹ or that it would be ok to censor gender-critical male standup comedians. In order to make a point succinctly enough that people listen instead of dozing off half-way to the end of the speech, simplifications are often helpful.
¹ Something which self-identifies as sensible despite it actually isn’t.
I’m not gender critical. I’m a gender denier. I believe gender (as something different to biological sex) is made up bullshit.
It has to be. “Gender is a social construct, but I need dangerous and expensive surgery/drug treatment to confirm my change of gender”.
Gender (as applied to humans) is a social construct because it was invented by a certain tribe of social scientists with the intent to study it.
I was compelled to make this claim myself but I think it’s too simplistic: Gender is a theoretical category someone invented for classifying humans and there’s no point in denying that someone did invented it and that it thus does exist. But I don’t think gender theory is either a sensible or a helpful theory for dealing with anything which exists in the real world. Especially when it gets to the point of defining gender as fundamental, innate property of people which transcends their physical existence, ie, as metaphysical property.
That’s what I mean.
Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, the Incredible Hulk, Unicorns, Jan 6 Insurrectionists, they all exist, but not really.
If the Act was passed in 2023, how can the current government stop it on a whim? Surely they have to bring it back to the chamber for another vote and use their majority to crush it. They can’t just block it by executive order.
This smells like a month old fish.
Join the Free Speech Union – the greater our numbers the more effective we become.
Freedom of speech must be an absolute, however, it can’t be free of consequence.
Those consequences should not be legislation and laws.
If someone wished to state some truly awful opinion or hit piece, which results in them losing all their friends and family, that should be their right.
Most people will self regulate because they have an innate sense of what is and what is not acceptable in social settings and society in general, I won’t give any examples, reasonable people sort of know.
There are clearly situations where absolute freedom of speech is not supported, if you are an employee and your contract of employment states that any offensive speech (needs defining) may result in immediate termination of employment. Using that same “offensive speech” outside of the work environment, such as in a pub or on the football terraces, should not result in termination.
There is no right not to be offended, people can choose to be offended or not, its a personal choice. If you don’t like what someone is saying, you can choose to challenge it, ignore it or no longer associate with that individual, and you can choose to inform them of the latter or not!
The current situation of people being afraid to speak for fear of offence is ridiculous and socially damaging, particularly if no offence was meant.
I think that is why people like Jimmy Car is funny, not because of genius comedy scripts, but he pushes acceptability to the edge.
Social media was a caustic acid bath on the veneer of society. Sure it was a thin layer but it was useful.
Students vote with their feet. Bear in mind that young people consume less than 5 minutes a day on average of BBC news. ‘Universities’, and I use the term broadly, are suffering huge financial losses due to declining enrolment. If you’re a savvy 18 year old and you get clued up about what higher education is in contemporary Britain – this is them most unappealing prospect imaginable. You might hold your nose and try to put up with it if you are doing a heavily vocational subject but otherwise you wouldn’t want to touch it with a barge pole. University as an undergraduate should be the best years of your life and somehow they have managed to even poison that.
They aren’t the government. If you want to fight these people just keep at it, they aren’t the government. How can they be the governement when they had twenty percent of the vote and most of them voted for Labour as simply a rejection of the status quo. They have no mandate. This will become apparent. I guarantee you that they will be in power less than six months given what is coming.
Fancy that, voting for Labour as a rejection of the status quo. How deluded.
Look at them milling around in the parliament buildings. They have forty bars and restaurants within the complex that they can pay for with expenses. Trust me times are going to get much much harder for all of us. Their tenure is very limited.
People in other countries have acted with bravery. Lets face it saying something contrary to Starmer isn’t exactly The Iliad.This man is easily overthrown regardless of his connections.
As a population you people have offered no resistance. Frankly you look scared out of you wits. I don’t give two shits but you as a nationality look like a bunch of prats. Don’t talk to me in a year’s time you have already shown your true character and I want nothing to do with it.
“You people”….Making a bit of a generalisation there mate. What does one man do apart from trying to warn people, not paying the corrupt BBC licence and staying away from the Snake Oil Big Pharma?
Alright mouthy, where are you from? What makes you so damn special? What have you done?
I object to the word gender being used to describe a person’s identity. It is a grammatical concept not a human attribute. According to the dictionary there are three genders masculine, feminine and neuter. English being one of the languages that doesn’t ascribe gender to inanimate objects. Try saying le baguette in France. People have a sex, male or female whether they like it or not.