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.

In January 2024, Amelia Sparrow (not her real name) was dismissed by a Liberal Democrat MP after only three full days in her role of Parliamentary Researcher. She believes this happened because of pressure from the Liberal Democrat Party after she gave voice to her belief that sex is real, immutable and important. Amelia has submitted a claim to the employment tribunal arguing that she was discriminated against and harassed by the Liberal Democrat MP, as well as the Liberal Democrat party and you can support her crowdfunder here. We stick on the theme of courage amongst our young people with the story of a 12-year-old schoolboy who has been investigated by counter-extremism officers after he declared there 'are only two genders'. The incident was reported in the Mail and is yet another case that reveals the extent of ideological capture within the UK’s education and law enforcement sectors. This particular 12-year-old appears more savvy about dubious ideas such as so-called ‘queer theory’ than many of the establishment higher-ups. We end with a discussion on the statement last week from UN Secretary General on the occasion of the “International Day for Countering Hate Speech”. According to António Guterres, “States have an obligation under international law to prevent and combat incitement to hatred and to promote diversity, mutual understanding and solidarity”. But, as Freddie Attenborough writes in an article for the FSU website, “At the softer end of the spectrum, the term ‘hate speech’ becomes something of a legal misnomer, since what is being referred to are forms of expression that some people or groups may indeed claim to find insulting, upsetting, or offensive, but that nonetheless receive and warrant legal protection”. Freddie continues, “The introduction of this element of subjectivity into the policing of hate speech – the continuing elongation of the spectrum at its softer end, as it were – has not been entirely unintentional, allowing as it does for organisations like the UN to rearticulate what qualifies as ‘hatred’ in their own political interests, thus widening the net of applicability to various individuals and groups whose dissenting views on climate change, mass immigration, and LGBTQ+ issues are ideologically inconvenient”.

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

The FSU has reviewed each of the main party manifestos (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Reform) for what they have to say about the five freedoms that we defend: freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. In today’s episode, we compare and contrast the results of our review. Free expression topics covered include Leveson Part 2, conversion therapy, EDI and the murky waters of misinformation and disinformation.

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

The Free Speech Fates have woven a Greek thread through today’s episode, starting with the Olympic Games. A 33-page ‘Portrayal Guidelines’ document, published ahead of this summer’s Paris Games, states that a person’s sex is not assigned based on genetics alone. As reported by the Telegraph, the International Olympic Committee has been accused by Martina Navratilova of waging a 1984 version of war on women after asking journalists not to use terms such as “born male” or “biologically male” to describe transgender athletes. It argues that such labels are dehumanising and constitute “problematic language”. Despite the ferocious backlash, Yiannis Exarchos, chief executive of Olympic Broadcasting Services, promised that his team in Paris would use the guidelines as “our Bible”, and “we call on our colleagues across all media to embrace them”. Meanwhile, Greek philosophers are at risk of being scrubbed out of various study courses. A new toolkit for ‘decolonising’ philosophy in secondary schools and universities summarily dismisses canonical western philosophers from Plato and Aristotle through to Descartes and Wittgenstein as ‘dead white males’ who engaged in solipsistic “armchair theorising” and must now make way for more exciting and sophisticated voices from the ‘Global South’ (Mail, Times). The toolkit was drawn up by four undergraduate student interns, working alongside four academic philosophers at SOAS (formerly the School of Oriental and African Studies) in London. We end by discussing our fears around a new form of diversity training, namely ‘plus-size inclusivity training’. Our concerns appear to be shared by oncologist Professor Karol Sikora, who is quoted in the article, “Plus-size inclusivity training is just the sort of nonsense that the senior management in the NHS will make part of the ridiculous politically inspired mandatory training all doctors are forced to do. Please bring back some common sense!”. We couldn’t agree more.

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

As reported in the Mail, Durham university last week postponed a debate on whether “Palestinian Leadership is the Biggest Barrier to Peace”. According to the article, a 'mob' of pro-Palestine protesters locked students inside a chamber for more than two hours and created a human chain around the building. Mohab Ramadan, a speaker for the opposition and founder of the university’s Israeli-Palestinian Resolution Society also received a hostile reception when he visited the protesters’ encampment. In response, he told them, “Granting yourself what you’re denying to others is shameful. To deny others the freedom to speak and debate when you yourself have encamped on Palace Green and been tolerated, allowed to speak and be heard by the entire University is unforgivable. I supported you and believed in your cause, arguing passionately for Palestine, but your actions have alienated the very people you seek to persuade”. Interestingly, Durham is at the top of the FSU’s league table of universities with the worst record of defending free speech - we’ve had to defend more students and staff from there than any other university in the UK. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that university staff in Exeter feel coerced to sign an anti-transphobia pledge. These calls to allyship are reminiscent of the ‘struggle sessions’ that were prevalent during China’s cultural revolution. We end with a tweet about King Alfred that causes us to revisit our discussion on the Anglo Saxons, this time in the context of so-called Queer Theory.

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

The Free Speech Union has responded to the Office for Students’ (OfS) consultation on its proposed new guidance for English universities on how best to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus. Realistically, the OfS’s approach to freedom of speech is likely to be unpopular with universities and, as a result, could face legal challenge. Our response sets out why we think the OfS’s position is legally defensible and how it could be improved. We also discuss the University of Cambridge’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, which we believe to be very positive - although the student magazine Varsity appeared less enthused. Sticking with the university world, an article in the Telegraph by an anonymous student caught our eye this week. When it comes to social media use, the writer observes that, “We aren’t posting online because we think we will have a clear impact. We’re doing it because of a huge moral impetus to speak out on issues - whether or not they concern us and whether or not we are familiar with them - and to be ‘right about them’”. The student continues, “The reward? A feedback loop of heart “reacts” and supportive comments, and endless approval in the form of retweets and likes”. In the follow-up discussion, Ben highlights three damaging experiments that have been carried out on our young people in recent years: trans ideology, lockdowns and smartphones. We finish with the new Appendix that we have added to our EDI Tax briefing paper. It runs through two egregious examples of EDI training, both highlighted to us by concerned FSU members. The first is a mandatory training course for any Amazon employees with supervisory responsibilities. It is produced by ‘Glamazon’, the company’s internal LGBT+ affinity group. The second is a guide produced by The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, a professional association, that’s intended for all speech and language therapists, as well as support workers and students.

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