1/10 Toby Young, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, has made the following statement about the police's investigation of Dr David Starkey. The FSU is supporting Dr Starkey, who is a member, and has found him a criminal solicitor.
2/10 "The suggestion that Dr David Starkey may be guilty of stirring up racial hatred is absurd. The only person he stirred up hatred against is himself and he has paid a heavy price. He has also unreservedly apologised for his remarks.
3/10 As Lord Justice Sedley said when upholding the right of free speech in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999): 'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the...
4/10 ...provocative [...] Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.'
I’m concerned that the Public Order Act is being used by the CPS and the police to curtail the speech rights of some, but not others.
5/10 On 22nd June, a Cambridge academic called Dr Priyamvada Gopal tweeted 'White Lives Don’t Matter' and shortly afterwards liked a tweet saying 'whites' are a 'disease that needs to be cleansed from the earth'.
6/10 I don’t think Dr Gopal should be investigated for these remarks any more than David Starkey should be for his. But if the police genuinely believe Dr Starkey may be guilty of stirring up racial hatred, why not Dr Gopal?
7/10 It suggests the law is being applied arbitrarily to silence people on the right, but not on the left.
Yesterday, Keir Starmer said: 'There has got to be a level of tolerance of course, but there is a line that can be crossed and it is very important that when it is...
8/10 ...crossed that there is police involvement, in some cases prosecutions.'
But as we can see if we compare the police’s treatment of Dr Starkey with their treatment of Dr Gopal, there is no line. Rather, it’s one rule for conservatives and another for the woke.
9/10 The Public Order Act, which criminalises stirring up racial hatred, is intended to preserve public order, not regulate speech and debate.
10/10 If the police start abusing it in this way to intimidate and harass people who dissent from woke orthodoxy they will undermine the rule of law."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Four authors have resigned from JK Rowling's literary agency, saying, “Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed.” Two problems with this principle. First, it's a
2/ rationale for trying to silence those who don't share your political ideology. Second, upholding free speech is a necessary condition for increasing opportunities for underrepresented groups. Without the protection of the First Amendment, the leaders of the American civil
3/ rights movement would not have been able to organise, march and protest. Trans activists, like all those fighting for the rights of underrepresented groups, should embrace free speech, not attack it.
1/ An alarming number of people are losing their jobs at the moment – or being suspended from them, pending investigations – because they've criticised some aspect of the Black Lives Matter movement.
2/ Grant Napear was fired by his radio station and resigned as the Sacramento Kings TV play-by-play announcer last week after he was mobbed for tweeting "All Lives Matter" nypost.com/2020/06/02/nba…
3/ Gordon Klein, a professor at UCLA, has been placed on leave after he refused to cancel a final exam following George Floyd's death washingtonexaminer.com/news/ucla-stud…
Last month, @GavinWilliamson gave UK universities a "final warning" – if they didn't take action to uphold free speech the govt would.
Tonight, Amber Rudd's invitation to speak at the UNWomen's Oxford Society was withdrawn at the behest of student activists – a clear breach of
@UniofOxford's own policy on free speech, as drafted by Timothy Garton Ash and Ken Macdonald, as well as the @EHRC's guidance on free speech at universities published last year, and could be a breach of Oxford's legal duty to uphold free speech under s43 of the Education (No 2)
Act 1986.
What's the point of putting these policies in place if universities aren't going to observe them?
This is the second major 'no-platforming' incident at Oxford in five days. The Free Speech Union lodged a formal complaint with the relevant authorities about the first
Professor Lee Jussim (@PsychRabble), who has agreed to be on the Advisory Council of the Free Speech Union, has written a Medium post drawing attention to an ongoing academic mobbing:
In this case, a group of academics who subscribe to trans orthodoxy have started a petition calling for the retraction of a peer-reviewed paper from an academic journal because it challenges that orthodoxy. The petition already has almost 1,000 signatures.
Please read Lee's
post and, if possible, write to the editors of the journal in question expressing your support for their decision to publish the paper – and your horror at the possibility it might be retracted for ideological reasons.
Once the FSU is up and running in the New Year we'll be