Minister Accused of Caving in to Cancel Culture on Free Speech Act
More than 500 academics, including Sir Niall Fergusson, have written to the Education Secretary to demand she implement the Freedom of Speech Act, which she torpedoed last month. The Times has more.
Ministers have been accused by some of Britain’s most eminent academics of giving in to so-called cancel culture after reversing plans to enshrine freedom of speech in universities.
Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, said last month she was suspending legislation that would have forced universities to defend free speech on campus. She claimed the act, which was due to come into force this month, was “not fit for purpose” and could “expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses”.
But in a letter to Phillipson, more than 500 academics have called on her to rethink the decision, warning that a failure to act would allow staff and students to be “hounded, censured and silenced” for holding legitimate, legal views.
Among those who have signed the letter include the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins, who was attacked for his views on religion following the publication of his book The God Delusion. It was also backed by the philosopher Kathleen Stock, whose gender-critical views have led to protests when she has spoken at universities, and the historian Niall Ferguson.
More than 50 academics at Oxford University and 30 who represent Cambridge have signed the letter. These include the historian David Abulafia, who criticised Britain’s membership of the European Union, and Robert Tombs, who has campaigned against the censorship of historical texts in universities.
In the letter they warn Phillipson that suspending the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act risks putting academics at risk and suppressing learning.
“The decision to halt (the act) appears to reflect the view, widespread among opponents, that there is no ‘free speech problem’ in UK universities. Nothing could be more false,” they wrote.
“Hundreds of academics and students have been hounded, censured, silenced or even sacked over the last 20 years for the expression of legal opinions.
“This state of affairs has serious consequences for all of us. The suppression of university research into the effects of puberty blockers facilitated one of the great medical scandals of our age, as the Cass Review makes clear.”
They added that a report published earlier this year by the Academic Freedom Index placed the UK 66th in the global league table of academic freedom, lower than Peru, Burkina Faso and Georgia.
Worth reading in full.
You can read the letter – and if you’re an academic add your name to it – here.
The Free Speech Union is applying for a judicial review of Bridget Phillipson’s decision to quash the Act, which is the first major legal challenge the Labour Government has faced. You can read the FSU’s pre-action protocol letter here and contribute to the its Legal Fighting Fund 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.
Good luck Toby. However, when there is a need to pass an act to allow people that hold right of centre (what used be referred to as traditional) views to speak, then society is absolutely f*cked. We’re in a death spiral and there is nothing we can do apart from wait until we hit the bottom – probably not in my lifetime.
On a jollier note, it’s a bank holiday weekend and I plan to get absolutely rat-arsed tonight. Better make the most whilst I’m still the right side of the prison door!
Got to stay sober tonight to drive myself to the roller disco, but will be getting drunk tomorrow, and yes we’re on the downward slope.
We are now all the Far White and that includes a lot of long established UK citizens of black and other ethnicities who are part of the successful side of the multicultural UK and share these views and values..
Precisely the views the government wants to suppress.
Indeed. They want to prevent free speech they don’t like, and are happy for universities to do their bit.
She is said to be concerned that the law would have meant universities could not block speakers such as the Holocaust denier David Irving and the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, as well as the antivaxer Andrew Wakefield. Minister accused of caving in to cancel culture on free speech act Oliver Wright, Policy Editor Thursday August 22 2024 The Times IRVING Irving lectured at universities for decades. He was called out and brought a defamation case which he lost when it was proved he was altering the facts to claim there was no holocaust. He was never arrested or tried for any crimes because he was not committing a crime under English law. That would not have happened if he was not allowed the freedom to voice his views. And this illustrates how restrictive the UK is in 2024 coimpared to the 1960s to 1990s. It is shocking how far freedoms are being curtailed and locked down particularly under this Far Left Starmfuhrer national socialist government. ANDREW WAKEFIELD Phillipson does not want the truth to be told. Wakefield was the target of an Establishment onslaught after he told the truth. And if you want to see proof of that you can… Read more »
Hardly anyone believes in freedom of speech
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/two-brave-men-daring-to-speak-for-the-majority-on-immigration/
A brilliant article from Paula Jardine at TCW.
Douglas Murray and Mat Goodwin are the decent guys standing up for the people of this country.
Immigration is destroying this country and we need to start exporting the illegals as a first step.
Oh dear we cannot upset any equality diversity race gender or climate people. That would never do. They are so f…ing delicate little snowflakes. ——When FREE People cannot speak they are no longer FREE
Still looking for the Adams apple in that photo.
Thanks to the DS for those two encouraging pieces of news!
The 500 Brave Academics, and the Free Speech Union’s legal challenge— brilliant!
More sinister news today that I hope the whole country will challenge:
Royal College of Nursing is encouraging nurses to refuse to treat “racists” – The Expose (expose-news.com)
Of course, the Royal College of Nursing is not referring to this kind of “racist”:
RadioGenoa on X: “”Get up you old Swedish woman, I must sit down now!” How much longer do we have to endure this? https://t.co/SvD9q53THh” / X
It doesn’t matter about how much freedom is allowed. Real victory for the totalitarians is that they don’t need restrictive measures because people adhere to the rules anyway. Like in 1984, victory isn’t making you say that two and two is five it is making you believe it as if it were self-evident. You could take a pessimistic reading of contemporary culture but I would argue that given the scientifically crafted propaganda model that has prevailed since 1914 it is a wonder and perhaps a victory that there is any dissent left at all.
It just gets worse and worse and worse and they have only been in power for barely more than a month.
Holy crap.
I was worried about the next five years just as I am worried what will happen if Harris wins the US Presidential election.
But the speed with which Starmfuhrer’s national socialist party have hit the ground running – with their faces – especially but not limited to the cases of Lammy and Miliband, surpasses all my worst fears.
What makes it worse is that whenever Starmfuhrer appears he looks relaxed with not a care in the world as if everything is going to plan – which as far as he is concerned it probably is.
Most worrying.
So that’s 500 academics the Cultural Marxists will be seeking to cancel.
It’s an indieation of the miserable state of our democracy that an Act of Parliament can be “suspended” by a government minister, without the Act being repealed.
A symptom of the modern tendency to pass Enabling Acts that leave the details to ministers and their officials.
If the utterly useless Conservatives had passed a proper Act, Ms Phillipson would have had to repeal the Act via a new parliamentary Bill.
It seems possible it is unlawful.
Toby Young’s FSU is said to be mounting a judicial review challenging the legality of this.
From memory I believe the question may be whether the Minister is acting so unreasonably that this is conduct no reasonable Minster would take.
If a majority government has decided legislate to repeal or alter existing legislation not yet in force is it unreasonable for a Minister of that government to anticipate that?
I have some difficulty with that proposition.
But then again, has a decision been made to so legislate? Are there any active plans or is this a Minister’s wishful thinking?
If the latter it is more likely to be unlawful IMHO.
That may well be the basis for the FSU legal action.
I was making a more fundamental point: if the Act itself had simply said it would come into effect on such-and-such a date, then it would have required Parliament to stop it. Ms Phillipson is only able to stop it because the Act said the minister would decide when it came into effect via a regulation, which she has decided not to issue.
A government cannot “decide to legislate”. It can only decide to put a Bill before the House and whip its own MPs to support it. A government can however decide to issue a regulation without getting permission from Parliament, if Parliament has given them that power by passing an Enabling Act.
Do you know the exact details?
When and how the Act is meant to come into force?
What is the action or inaction of Phillipson?
Has she just failed to act? Or has she decided not to do her job of bringing an Act of Parliament into force?
If the latter, I doubt she has legal authority to act in that manner.