Thread by @silkiecarlo

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill has second reading in the Commons today. And something strange has happened on the Labour front bench… 🧵

There are problems with this Bill. In practice, it could either make no material change (there are existing legal duties to protect free speech in education) or create more authoritative or political interference with what speech is deemed acceptable or not.

It also contradicts the Government’s Prevent duty, which requires educational institutions to take part in counter-terror-spying-lite, usually resulting in undue suspicion of young Muslims & speech-vetting. If they were serious about free speech, this would be first to go.

However- the Labour *front bench* motion is to reject the Bill because it is a “hate speech protection Bill” which protects “Holocaust denial, racism and anti-vaccination messages”. Woah!

Keir Starmer, often seen as a human rights man, has his name to this.

However, with this framing, Labour is maligning and misrepresenting the human right to free expression, protected by the Human Rights Act and ECHR.

Taking each of their three, emotive examples in turn:

1. Holocaust denial is heinous. It’s also not an offence per se under UK law - but can be, and has been prosecuted, where “grossly offensive” (which it always is - I know). It’s legitimate to criticise this - but questionable to mount an attack on free speech on this basis.

2. Racism. Racism mustn’t be tolerated in universities or anywhere. Speech that incites racial or religious hatred or causes alarm, distress, fear or harassment, or is grossly offensive or purposefully distressing - already prohibited under UK law.

3. Anti-vaccination messages. An a la mode target for censors, and dangerously so. How do you examine and dispel myths about vaccine dangers? How do you also examine vaccine dangers when they exist? How do you debate alternatives?

How do you discuss complex factors ranging culture, religion, economic interest, social attitudes, etc?

By protecting an open forum. If vaccines are to be discussed openly ANYWHERE, pro or anti (an often useless and unrealistic dichotomy) please let it be in our universities.

I did my degree in psychology at one of the leading centres on autism. We were encouraged to discuss and openly examine Wakefield (it doesn’t take long..), MMR/vaccine theories (no evidence of a link!) and even criticise the current leading lights of autism study in our own dept.

Can I stress these were not maligned activities. Following evidence and following a rigorous scientific method is what academics teach, and are taught, to do. Shutting down discussions and branding them “hate speech” is not.

The Labour front bench has shown a lack of skill in taking this Bill on and risked an own goal on what is genuinely contentious legislation.

OTTH, Labour backbenchers & separately Lib Dems have tabled sensible opposition noting existing laws, Prevent, & risk of inverse effect.