Labour’s Surrender to the Foes of Free Expression
A Disturbing Turn of Events
In a deeply concerning development, merely three weeks into the tenure of the new Labour Government, we find ourselves confronted with yet another alarming decision that has been surreptitiously implemented without proper scrutiny. This time, the very cornerstone of our democratic society – the right to free speech – is under threat. The newly appointed Education Secretary has taken the drastic step of halting the progress of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, with the ominous intention of considering its complete repeal.
The manner in which this decision was unveiled is, in itself, a cause for grave concern. Unless one happens to be a devoted campaigner in the realm of free speech, this momentous shift in policy would have likely escaped notice. The announcement was discreetly tucked away at the conclusion of a written statement, buried deep within the labyrinthine Parliament website. There was a conspicuous absence of debate in the chamber, no opportunity for Members of Parliament to subject the decision to rigorous examination, and not even a perfunctory press release to inform the public. The irony of this clandestine approach to a matter of such paramount importance as free speech is not lost on those who value open discourse.
As the minister who spearheaded this crucial legislation, I can attest to its vital importance in safeguarding the freedom of expression for both academics and students within our esteemed universities. Throughout the process of crafting and implementing this act, we faced relentless opposition from the Labour Party. Their priorities appeared to be woefully misplaced, seemingly more preoccupied with the administrative workload of university staff than with the pressing needs of students and academics whose fundamental right to free speech had been systematically eroded.
The consequences of this erosion have been far-reaching and profoundly disturbing. We have witnessed the arbitrary cancellation of speaking events, the capricious withdrawal of university placements, and in the most egregious cases, the utter ruination of promising careers. What heinous offence could have precipitated such draconian measures? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: these individuals had the temerity to express views that, while neither hateful nor illegal, were deemed merely controversial.
This pattern of behaviour should not come as a surprise to those who have been paying attention. The worldview espoused by the radical Left is one in which the very notion of debate is anathema. A cursory examination of recent history reveals a troubling trend. Those who dared to question whether the sanctity of vulnerable women’s spaces should be preserved were summarily branded as bigots. Individuals who raised legitimate concerns about the fairness of imposing the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) tax on those with the most limited financial means were dismissively labelled as flat-earthers. Perhaps most disturbingly, those who had the audacity to inquire whether the prolonged lockdowns might have inflicted lasting harm on the mental well-being of our children were callously accused of being ‘granny killers’.
Labour cannot obfuscate their true nature – they are a party so deeply entrenched in the insular politics of student unions that their instinctive response to any challenging issue is not to engage in reasoned debate, but to summarily silence the opposition.
Our Freedom of Speech Act was meticulously crafted to address these concerns. It introduced a robust framework of accountability for universities regarding the state of free speech on their campuses. Moreover, it empowered academics, students, and invited speakers with the legal right to seek redress through the courts if their rights were unjustly infringed upon. A cornerstone of the Act was the creation of a new role – that of a free speech director, vested with the legal obligation to safeguard free speech and investigate instances of ‘no-platforming’ at universities.
During the legislative process, I was profoundly disturbed by the myriad accounts of those who had fallen victim to the pernicious influences of cancel culture and self-censorship that have insidiously permeated our academic institutions. One particularly troubling case involved a group of mathematicians who found themselves under intense pressure to ‘decolonise’ their curriculum. This misguided initiative sought to suppress the work of ‘white mathematicians’ while artificially elevating that of ‘non-white mathematicians’ – a clear example of discrimination masquerading as progress. The sentiment expressed by these beleaguered academics was one I encountered with distressing frequency: “We are paralysed by fear, unable to speak out due to the very real threat of backlash that could jeopardise our livelihoods.”
The stark reality is that Labour politicians appear to be in a state of denial regarding the magnitude of this issue. More alarmingly, they seem to have adopted the view that free speech is not a principle worth defending. In a recent statement to the BBC, the Education Secretary boldly proclaimed that the ‘culture wars’ on campus would ‘end here’. This declaration betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The true instigators of these ‘culture wars’ are not those who advocate for open and free debate on divisive ideologies. Rather, they are the radical activist groups on the Left who, in their misguided sense of moral superiority, believe that their personal convictions should trump the right of others to disagree. It requires an astounding level of delusion to accuse those who merely seek to maintain mainstream opinion of fomenting culture wars.
This mindset represents the gravest threat posed by the Labour Party. Their agenda is one of radical transformation, yet they seek to implement it without the inconvenience of debate or dissent. It is precisely this belief in the fundamental right to pose difficult questions and express challenging ideas that forms the bedrock of my Conservative convictions.
The left’s ideological inclinations have already led to dire consequences. We have seen vulnerable children placed at risk due to the demands of activist organisations such as Stonewall. If left unchecked, this approach will inevitably lead to a wholesale rewriting of our rich and complex history. Furthermore, it threatens to usher in an ideologically driven approach to achieving net-zero carbon emissions that could potentially impoverish our nation. If we fail to stand firm in defence of our right to question and challenge, the trajectory upon which Labour may lead us is truly alarming.
In conclusion, the decision to halt and potentially repeal the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act represents a significant backward step in the protection of academic freedom and open discourse in our society. It is imperative that we remain vigilant and continue to champion the cause of free speech, even in the face of opposition from those who would seek to silence dissenting voices. The future of our democratic society and the integrity of our academic institutions hang in the balance. We must not allow the enemies of free speech to prevail, lest we find ourselves in a world where the exchange of ideas is stifled, and the pursuit of truth is subordinated to ideological conformity.