Post

@PsychRabble

More from @SpeechUnion

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

Jan 18

In an effort to tackle rising antisemitism, the Australian Government is planning to introduce a new ‘hate speech’ law with a maximum sentence of five years in jail.

But if you look at ‘hate speech’ laws in the UK, they are much more likely to be enforced against the defenders of Israel and critics of Islamic extremism than they are against antisemites.

Let’s have a look at the evidence.👇
A thread 🧵

1️⃣Brodie Mitchell and Royal Holloway

Brodie Mitchell, a student at Royal Holloway, University of London, was suspended and kicked out of his university accommodation for telling a keffiyeh-wearing student that she had a “tea towel” on her head – a remark he made in response to her calling him a “wannabe Jew”.

Mr Mitchell, who is non-Jewish but pro-Israel, has now been allowed to resume his studies after launching a legal actionfunded by the Free Speech Union. At an initial hearing, he said he felt at the time that his remark was a “fitting off-the-cuff retort”, but accepted that it was “poorly expressed and inappropriate”, even though it was “only about politics, not about race or religion”.

He is now – with the help of the Free Speech Union – suing the university. The other student faced no disciplinary action and was allowed to continue with her studies.

Read more: jewishnews.co.uk/student-suing-…

2️⃣Labour MP banned from visiting a school in his constituency because of his pro-Israel views

A Jewish Labour MP was no-platformed by a school in his own constituency following pressure from pro-Palestinian activists and members of the National Education Union, the UK’s largest teaching union.

The Bristol branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign later celebrated the MP’s exclusion as a “win for safeguarding” in a Facebook post on 5th September.

British schools have been encouraged by successive governments to introduce “safeguarding” policies to protect children from sexual predators, as well as to stop them being radicalised by Islamist extremists spouting antisemitic bile. Now, they’re being used to “protect” schoolchildren from “Zionists”, i.e., Jews.

Read more: spectator.com/article/why-ca…

Read 17 tweets

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

May 13, 2025

🚨 Later tonight, FSU Head Lord Young will speak in the House of Lords against Clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill — a provision that could extend workplace speech policing into pubs, stadiums, and universities.

Here’s what’s at stake — and how you can help 🧵

1️⃣ Clause 20 would make employers liable for non-sexual ‘harassment’ by third parties — not just for what’s said to employees, but for jokes, offhand remarks, or even political opinions they might simply overhear.

This is state-enforced speech policing, plain and simple. It will extend the fearful, stifling atmosphere already gripping workplaces to pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, stadiums and universities — accelerating Britain’s transformation into East Germany circa 1984.

🎥 Watch @toadmeister and Conservative MP @griffitha explain why this matters.

2️⃣ Peers are considering Lord Young's amendments to rein in Clause 20’s overreach this evening:

🗣️ Shield lawful opinion (Amendments 83 & 84):
Protect political, moral, religious or social views from being mislabelled as ‘harassment’ — unless grossly offensive.

🍻 Protect open environments (Amendment 85):
Exempt pubs, sports venues and universities — spaces where open debate shouldn’t be chilled by legal risk.

⚖️ Restore proportionality (Amendment 86):
Employers would only be liable if harassment has occurred on two prior occasions — reinstating the threshold Parliament scrapped in 2013.

Read 5 tweets

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

Feb 4, 2025

At a recent PMQs, @KemiBadenoch told MPs that Labour’s adoption of the APPG on British Muslims’ definition of ‘Islamophobia’ has inhibited public discussion of rape gangs.

She pointed out that under this definition, anyone highlighting the over-representation of Muslim men in grooming gangs risks being branded an Islamophobe. Some Labour MPs, she said, have been "scared to tell the truth”.

She’s right — but here’s a thread on why the problem runs even deeper. 🧵👇

The APPG definition was drawn up in 2018 under Wes Streeting and Anna Soubry. It defines Islamophobia as: “A type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” Labour formally adopted it in 2019, and its chilling effect on free speech has only grown since.

At the time, critics warned the definition was dangerously broad. It states, for example, that “claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword” are Islamophobic. By that logic, Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword — a history book on Islam’s early expansion — would be classed as Islamophobic.

Read 13 tweets

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

Feb 4, 2025

🧵1/4 Free speech under threat!

Labour has officially adopted the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ dangerously broad and subjective definition of ‘Islamophobia’ — as have dozens of Labour-run councils, including in areas where grooming gangs have operated. Under this definition, even stating that some of these gangs are of Pakistani heritage could be deemed ‘Islamophobic’.

Now, with Labour in government and Angela Rayner proposing an ‘Islamophobia council’, the risk is real. Once adopted as official guidance for public bodies, individuals could face accusations of Islamophobia simply for criticising aspects of Islam, or Islamic practices.

In the worst-case, such remarks could be treated as stirring up religious hatred — an offence under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 — leading to criminal charges and even jail time. This is a dangerous path, one that threatens the principle of open discourse on which democracy depends. Read FSU staffer Freddie Attenborough’s piece in The Spectator on why it matters.

spectator.co.uk/article/islamo…

2/4 And what about ex-Muslims who have left Islam and want to explain why?

As FSU Director of Case Management Dr @BenBarryJones recently pointed out, the right not to believe is a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Yet apostates from Islam living in the UK already face ostracism, threats, and even violence.

For those who already bear the greatest personal cost for speaking out, a non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ — apparently favoured by Angela Rayner and her Labour colleagues — would make an already dangerous climate even worse.

Watch Ben's interview with NTD's @LeeAlanHall here.

youtube.com/watch?v=1OtCM7…

You can also read the shocking findings of Ben's doctoral research into the experiences of Muslim apostates in the UK here.

freespeechunion.org/shocking-findi…

Ben found numerous people wanting to leave Islam who have been forced to live ‘double lives,’ had their finances seized by relatives, or even faced physical assault.

In one case, a police officer told a 19-year-old lesbian under threat from her parents that she should avoid speaking openly about leaving the faith.

How much worse would it get for others like her if the APPG definition were formally adopted as government guidance?

3/4 But the problem isn’t just the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’.

As @CConcern’s Head of Public Policy, @TDieppe, highlights in a recent research briefing for the FSU, ANY attempt to formalise a definition — whether through a non-statutory framework or future legal changes — would have a chilling effect on public debate.

Historians, critics of Islamism, and those engaging in legitimate debate about Islam, integration, and multiculturalism could find themselves accused of ‘Islamophobia’, with severe professional and legal consequences. The last vestiges of open discussion on these crucial issues would disappear.

Read Tim’s full briefing here.

freespeechunion.org/banning-islamo…

Read 4 tweets

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

Jan 9, 2025

The Labour Party's adoption of a controversial definition of Islamophobia makes it difficult for Keir Starmer to discuss rape gangs, @KemiBadenoch told MPs during PMQs. She's right, as we flagged up in a 2024 briefing paper. Here's a 🧵on why the problem goes deeper than that...

The definition Mrs Badenoch referred to was drafted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims in 2018. It was drawn up when Wes Streeting – now the Health Secretary – was its chairman and describes Islamophobia as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".

In a recent FSU briefing, Christian Concern's @TDieppe warned that defining Islamophobia this way would inevitably curtail free speech. By relying on perception, he argued, the APPG definition invites subjective interpretations that deter legitimate criticism of religious beliefs or practices.

freespeechunion.org/banning-islamo…

Read 9 tweets

The Free Speech Union

@SpeechUnion

Nov 16, 2024

In response to freedom of information requests, police forces across Britain have revealed that 'non-crime hate incidents' (NCHIs) are being logged against people in authority doing their jobs. Examples include:

❌ An NCHI recorded against a doctor in West Yorkshire after a patient alleged they were misdiagnosed "because they were bisexual".

❌ A journalist's article about his interview with a "deaf and dumb" scooterist being reported to the police as a hate incident.

❌ A social worker was also reported to the police in Lancashire over claims she had abused her position and racially discriminated against the victim by preventing her from seeing her children.

freespeechunion.org/doctors-and-vi…

In 2014, the College of Policing — a taxpayer-funded quango — came up with the concept of the NCHI in its 'Hate Crime Operational Guidance'. As defined in this document, an NCHI is any incident perceived by the victim or any bystanders to be motivated by hostility or prejudice to the victim based on a 'protected' characteristic (race or perceived race, religion or perceived religion, and so on).

For the avoidance of doubt, non-crime hate incidents really are as Orwellian as they sound. They aren't anonymised, and sit forever against the names of the alleged perpetrators without any real investigation or right of appeal. In addition, if one is recorded against your name it can show up on an enhanced criminal records check and prevent you from getting a job.

That's right, you might not get a job because someone 'perceives' you've committed a 'non-crime'.

Here's a short 🧵detailing some of the most egregious of the 250,000+ NCHIs we estimate the police in England and Wales have logged since 2014...

In June 2022, Wiltshire Police opened a non-crime hate incident file when an 11-year-old boy was called "shorty" and "leprechaun" in the street by another boy.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

Hampshire Police dispatched five officers to arrest army veteran Darren Brady following a complaint that he'd reposted a meme created by Laurence Fox depicting the Pride flag as a swastika.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

Read 17 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

The Free Speech Union

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SpeechUnion

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

The Free Speech Union

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!