After a week that included the attempted assassination of former President Trump and the breaking news that President Biden will no longer be standing in November’s US election, we discuss how political polarisation so rapidly fosters an environment in which cancel culture thrives. Of particular note is the manner in which many on the right are now calling for the cancellation of people making off colour remarks about the attempt on President Trump’s life, a troubling phenomenon that Brendan O’Neill writes about this week in the Spectator. Closer to home, and in the wake of last year’s debanking of Nigel Farage, we discuss the findings from a review by the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) on whether parliamentarians, senior public servants and their families are treated fairly by financial institutions. As the Guardian reports, the FCA is telling financial firms to ensure their definition of a PEP (politically exposed person), family member, or close associate is “tightened to the minimum required by law” and not to go beyond that. In light of the FCA’s advice, the FSU will be writing to Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and City Minister, to remind her that the amendments to the Payment Services Regulations that we campaigned for enjoyed cross-party support and the present Government should now get on and make them. The fight against politicised Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (‘EDI’) training in the workplace looks set to continue as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, launches a four-year scheme to ‘embed an inclusive culture’ and reduce ‘microaggressions’ at Transport for London (TfL) – something that is expected to ratchet up a bill close to £2.5m. As the Telegraph highlights, unconscious bias training was scrapped at central government level four years ago after an official review found the courses did not change behaviour or improve workplace equality. Like the Lernaean Hydra, it seems that no sooner do we chop one head off the EDI monster than two more grow back.

‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

On Tuesday 9 July, the Free Speech Union was honoured to bring together an expert panel that included whistleblowers Sue Evans and Dr David Bell from the Tavistock Clinic, who risked their careers and much more to pursue the truth. As anticipated, the evening was a unique opportunity for us to learn the core free expression lesson from the Cass Report and the Tavistock scandal: that open inquiry and freedom of speech are essential to protecting us from pernicious ideas. Both Tom and Ben were fortunate enough to attend in person and much of today’s episode is spent pondering the thoughts and threads that resonated with them most strongly. We also discuss a London council’s attempt to label a Bloomsbury monument of Virginia Woolf with a digital tag that highlights her alleged ‘imperialist attitudes’. The story was reported in the Mail and it is heartening to witness Emma Woolf robustly defending her great aunt on Twitter/X: ‘You couldn't make it up. The wokerati of Camden Council have decided that this statue of my great-aunt Virginia Woolf in Bloomsbury needs a QR code to explain her 'offensive' attitudes. Just to be clear, this was a woman born in 1882. Are they expecting her to trot out the Wokery of 2024? Virginia was a feminist, socially progressive, a literary pioneer, politically active (Fabian Society etc), she was way ahead of her time in so many ways’ .

‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

While the FSU persists in its mission to remain politically non-partisan, we are worried that the new government could bring in laws that criminalise vast swathes of speech. Freddie Attenborough highlights these concerns in an article for our website and we begin today with a discussion around the five primary free expression issues that he identifies: the APPG definition of Islamophobia, Labour’s proposed Race Equality Act, a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, a possible Hate Crime & Public Order Act (England & Wales), and greater restriction on the freedom of the press. In the coming years, we suspect we will need to fight a number of test cases in which we challenge whether the new laws are compatible with our existing legislation, including the Human Rights Act. The reality of the UK’s free speech problem is underlined by our quarterly analysis of FSU casework stats, which is hot off the press. Since our inception in February 2020, we have handled nearly 2,700 cases and, when we know the outcome, we achieve a favourable outcome for our members over 75% of the time. Shockingly, nearly one quarter of the workplace cases that we see lead to initial dismissal or the loss of a working contract (though FSU involvement may ultimately lead to some form of vindication for our member). This highlights how rapidly situations escalate in these fraught times. We end with the good news that, with our help, an FSU member has successfully fought back after being banned from a pub for gender critical views. It is especially chilling to note that this happened to a prospective parliamentary candidate during the UK’s general election campaign, a time when a robust exchange of differing political opinions is surely an essential part of the democratic process.

‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.