The Worker Protection Bill will have grave implications for #freedomofspeech in this country, as well as imposing huge compliance costs on Britain’s businesses. This week, the legislation reached second reading in the #houseoflords, and there were some terrific speeches.
Clause 1 of the Bill imposes a duty on employers to take "all reasonable steps" to protect staff from overhearing upsetting remarks made by customers. As a publisher and museum trustee, Lord @IanStrathcarron was able to explain why this part of the Bill wouldn't work in practice.
If we were just talking about sexual harassment, that would be one thing, said Lord Moylan. But in an act of "overreach", the bill is attempting to extend third-party liability to every type of "unwanted conduct" prohibited by the Equality Act, including overheard comments.
And where the Equality Act chilled the workplace atmosphere, with people living in fear of saying the wrong thing and being reported to HR, the Earl of Leicester worried that the Worker Protection Bill would now spread that chill into places where people spend their leisure time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 BREAKING: The FSU has written to the CEO of the Charity Commission, Helen Stephenson, asking her to open an investigation into Jamia Masjid Swafia, the Wakefield mosque at the centre of the recent 'Quran-gate' scandal. freespeechunion.org/letter-to-the-…
Jamia Masjid Swafia is the Wakefield mosque at which the mother of a 14-year-old Kettlethorpe High School pupil recently appeared, seemingly in an effort to protect her son, who had been receiving death threats after accidentally dropping a copy of the Quran.
While she sat on a panel held at the mosque, dressed in a Muslim headscarf and modestly bowing her head, the Imam warned that the Muslim community wouldn’t tolerate "the slightest bit of disrespect" shown to the Quran, and if necessary would defend its honour with their lives.
The University of Kent is advising all staff and students to call everyone "they" until their preferred pronouns are confirmed — according to the university's website, this will help to create an "authentic culture of inclusion" at the institution. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…
But will it? As Toby Young told the Mail: "Demanding that everyone declare their pronouns will require some people — e.g., gender critical feminists, orthodox Christians — to affirm something they don't believe to be true, i.e., that it's possible for a person to change sex."
The FSU is regularly contacted by members asking what to do about the fact an employer has asked them to declare their preferred gender pronouns, usually below their name at the bottom of an email. That’s why we've pulled together some FAQs on this issue. freespeechunion.org/faqs-on-what-t…
The Lords Amendments to the Higher Education (#FreedomofSpeech) Bill were debated in the #HouseofCommons last night and there was a great outcome—Amendment 10, which seeks to remove the right of students and staff to sue universities that breach their speech rights, was rejected!
Clause 4 of the legislation creates a statutory tort, which Amendment 10 sought to delete. The FSU's position is clear—the tort is what gives the legislation's new free speech duties teeth, and if it's removed then the Bill is essentially a dead letter.
Among the MPs who rose to support the Government's decision to reject Amendment 10 were John Hayes, who described the tort as "an essential method to give weight to the Bill and teeth to the principles it embodies, and one that gives voice to those who currently feel voiceless".
The new version of the Online Safety Bill seems, on the face of it, to be an improvement on the previous version, although the devil will be in the detail.
Let's start with the positives.🧵
Plans to introduce a new harmful communications offence in England and Wales, making it a crime punishable by up to two years in jail to send or post a message with the intention of causing “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress” have been scrapped.
That's good news because, as Kemi Badenoch said in July, “We should not be legislating for hurt feelings.”
The bad news is, the new communications offence was intended to replace some of the more egregious offences in the Communications Act and the Malicious Communications Act.
Great news via WeAreFairCop! Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are/were a threat to #freespeech in the UK — like @WeAreFairCop and @BadLawTeam, the FSU has supported people who've fallen foul of this sinister form of thoughtpolicing.
Here's a brief 🧵on the history of the NCHI...
Back in 2014, the College of Policing's original guidelines defined NCHIs as incidents “perceived by the victim or any others to be motivated by hostility or prejudice”. Around 20,000 NCHIs have been recorded per year since then. spiked-online.com/2022/06/01/the…
At the time, NCHIs could be:
1⃣ Reported by the victim or by any other person who witnessed the incident.
2⃣ Recorded irrespective of whether there was any objective evidence to identify the hate element.
They also showed up in enhanced DBS checks for potential employees.
The FSU has looked at the terms and conditions of the major payment processors and crowdfunding platforms and given them a score out of 10 according to how friendly towards free speech they are. It's not great news.
❌ We don’t recommend any of the crowdfunding platforms.
✅ The only payment processors we recommend for users concerned about protecting their free speech are Worldplay (8/10) and Stripe (7/10).
🧵2/5
The difficulty the FSU's Research Officer, Carrie Clark, identifies is that most of these companies include subjective, ambiguous words and phrases in their policies, prohibiting things like ‘misinformation’, ‘hate speech’, ‘offence’ and ‘intolerance’.