Labour to scrap Freedom of Speech Act

I'd like a free speech bill which included an obligation of right-to-reply. That absolutely free speech should be allowed but in the case of any contentious speaker, or anyone speaking against the equality and humanity of any protected group, any event must give equal platform, in the same event and to the same audience, to a speaker of equal impact (comparable level of qualifications, experience and oratory skill) giving the opposing view.

So yes you can invite a holocaust denier to speak, but you have to give the same amount of time in the same event to someone who will destroy what they said point by point. Same going for all other points of contention.

Free speech is important because it gives the idiotic, antiscientific and bigotted enough rope to hang themselves. If there isn't free speech the same things get said in private where they can't be challenged or disproven by those who know better.

Operation "Let them speak"

So we're left with having to threaten legal action, or even raise money for legal action, against universities like Swansea over trying to cancel or refusing to take bookings for women's rights events and speakers.

You seem to have conveniently ignored this bit of her statement:

Lastly, I have written to colleagues separately about my decision to stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal.

This isn't just kicking the can down the road.

This is an excellent point and I agree. One day we will repeal the GRA. I am sure of it.

Parliament did not say that this Act should come into force in a few days.

The Act says that ‘[most] provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint’.

A previous Minister decided it should come into force in August.

The current Minister has now revoked that commencement order - precisely in line with the powers that Parliament has given her.

If universities don't protect the right to discuss controversial ideas, frankly they might as well shut down. Perhaps they could keep certain technical sections though I believe they also would suggest from lack of protecting controversial conversations.

Had they upheld their obligations instead of wholesale undermining them, they wouldn't be dealing now with the possibility of fines.

Presumably this is the problem if you have a change of Government just as a bill is about to come into being.

Not sure of the powers of a Minister to put "on hold" something that Parliament said should become law in a few days.
.

If you read all of the 2 articles I posted links to above, it seems to be as much about the financial cost to universities should it be found they had breached someone's freedom of speech. As they go on to talk about other financial priorities. Almost implying if there was no financial implication it would not have been halted.

So suspect despite what seem like principled considerations about free speech, it is that no university wants to have to deal with possible fines, on endless law suits.

IMO part of the problem is not the over the top comments about full on racists and anti-abortionist being given a platform, but much more the way factionalism is now how (not just students) people launch personal / moral attacks on those who have views they dont agree with. ie against GC women, accusing them of being transphobes and causing distress, and as Suella Braverman did saying any criticism of Israel / Zionism is anti semitic, even when it is Jewish people saying it.

Its like everyone wants to out Trump Trump, whose only method of making a political point is to personally insult someone who has said something he doesn't agree with.

Although judging by the odd occasions I watch chat / discussion shows on tv, I think quite a substantial part of what passes for political debate currently has already taken this direction.

And not sure we can go back.

ie young people are growing up with this as the norm.

The government does not scrap/repeal an act. Parliament does that. Of course, in practice the government has a majority in Parliament, in this case a stonking one, and so when the Cabinet decides to do something, it is going to happen - but formally it's the democratically elected Parliament that does it.

0Oo is obviously one of those 'freedom of speech as long as I like it' people.

Everyone supports freedom of speech for things they agree with. It only means anything if you agree people have the freedom to say things you disagree with.

Is it actually Bridget Phillipson making these decisions or some of the misogynists in the civil service who have been involved in the creation of the Bill?

How would Phillipson be in a position to know anything about the Bill - she says she's "aware of concerns" but who is she getting her info from?

It's not a back door.

Freedom of speech means people can say things and make arguments that some think are sexist, racist, or or any other thing they disapprove of.

Others can argue against them.

That's the fucking point.

And if anyone thinks the NUS gives a flying fuck about antisemitism, I have a bridge to sell you.

No, but in their position against this Act, they are on the same side as the UJS (Union of Jewish Students), which does care about antisemitism.

(I take no position on this Act as I haven't looked into it.)

Well I suppose one silver lining is that it shows problematic Acts can be repealed where there's proof of them causing problems for a specific group of people.

We have a lot of proof.

Repeal the GRA.

Excellent point.

“the National Union of Students’ vice-president for liberation and equality”

Jesus, where do they pull these titles from?

And I rather suspect the “liberation” element of their role gets a lot more of their attention than trying to achieve actual equality on campus. Bet many Jewish students, for instance, haven’t felt equally heard or treated since (at least) October.

This legislation was a back door for racism, sexist, and anti-feminism discourse, to claim protection under freedom of speech. I prefer that they drop it. Let's not throw women under the bridge again.

3 weeks in and women's rights have reversed by 4 years. Jo Phoenix, James Esses', Kathleen Stock's.

Labour GC Luvvies Jane CJ, Ali C, Julie Bindel - it is those very "important leading Labour feminists" to solve this. Course their Labour Party buddies will listen to them (but Starmer will just remove their Whip).

Lots of NUS activists still regard the Tuck report as basically illegitimate.

There would have been a few provisions that might have been difficult to implement, but if Phillipson just wanted to pause implementation so she could fix those, she'd have said so. By telegraphing repeal she's setting the stage for repealing the whole thing.

Interesting that the government statement went big on a supporting quote from the President of the Board of Deputies. It's true that the Jewish community are very nervous and have been since October 7, for good reason. But Labour fought the bill tooth and nail in the last parliament, and even if they hadn't, it would be reasonable to suppose that Phillipson had been got at by (a) university administrators who don't like the idea of being held liable, and (b) lefty academics who think the very concept of free speech is a far right dogwhistle.

And if anyone thinks the NUS gives a flying fuck about antisemitism, I have a bridge to sell you.

Well said Ova

Well I suppose one silver lining is that it shows problematic Acts can be repealed where there's proof of them causing problems for a specific group of people.

We have a lot of proof.

Repeal the GRA.