Here is the full document. I am going to go through it now.

Yep. This is also a point strongly made in @andrewdoyle_com's new book on Free Speech which I am halfway through and am pretty sure I will be recommending as a primer for the alarming number of people who seem confused about what free speech is & why it is good.
Well, good! Conservatives have not been great at this historically so I must give credit where it is due. I really wish this were a left-wing government taking this progressive stance.

(Areo has a piece forthcoming on why supporting FoS is inherently progressive, btw)
Yes, sadly this is true. I currently have half a dozen cases where people are being penalised for trying to express unorthodox views in the academy.
However, I should also say that one case in which I helped a student prepare for an ethical review when she had already been made aware her views were problematic (she wanted to treat people as individuals) was a resounding success & she passed it. So there is still hope.
Yes, there are appropriate and inappropriate repercussions for expressing ideas. Being thought an idiot or contemptible = fine. Being harassed, intimidated, penalised or fired = unacceptable.
Yep, I recommend yet again that you all read Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. If you remain unconvinced that freedom of speech is the best protection for minorities after this, I will despair of you. Unless you have a better argument, of course. Not seen one yet.
Important distinction. It's why we must allow CSJ ideas to be expressed without intimidation too. It's the only way to beat them. But they must submit themselves to the marketplace of ideas and accept legitimate disagreement is possible & not a moral failing or wilful blindness
Hmmm. I think Student Unions must be able to be political but they shouldn't be able to enforce only one political view and ban all the others.
This is sensible but it relies upon a reasonable interpretation of "likely to stir up hatred." I remember Maryam Namazie being accused of this for criticising Islamism which is surely an argument that must be able to be made.
Yes, emboldening the majority to speak out in defence of freedom of speech is a primary aim of @Counter_Weight_
Well, yes, radical feminists get deplatformed & disinvited now for being "TERFs" & they are usually pretty far left. Also Maryam Namazie as mentioned above & she's a communist. Also me & I'm a liberal leftie. This isn't a straightforward left vs right issue.
Yes, we need to create a culture that actively recognises freedom of belief and speech not only as a vital individual right but as a way to advance knowledge & make moral progress. It's what universities are FOR.
This free speech champion needs to be politically neutral or, as this is practically impossible, for there to be a board of them with diverse viewpoints.
I agree with this. I may actually be dealing with a case of this right now although I need more information to be sure the student was failed for disagreeing with the orthodoxy. If so, we shall go to bat for her.
I was disinvited from a Decolonise STEM symposium because I intended to argue that saying that STEM is a white way of thinking is actually a bit racist. This view of mine endangered the safety of other attendees, apparently. I wasn't a 'visiting speaker' though.
This all seems very reasonable and to acknowledge the right to deny a platform to people whose speech incites violence either directly or by being incendiary. (This doesn't include things like believing 'woman' to be a biological category, CSJ activists)
Yes, good. People must oppose speech with speech, not with violence or intimidation or by drowning it out. FFS, stop making me approve of Conservative plans, alleged lefties. This is what we should be protecting.

More from Government

I am going to take the context for this thread from this piece by my good brother @mabziz in 2018-3 years ago. One thing I am so perturbed about is the response of our Attorney General's office to issues of state security. I have no personal grouse against @MalamiSan, but


2. I do have a professional grouse against him. I feel he is not alive to his duties. I feel that he is also not empowering his Director of Public Prosecutions or his Solicitor General. There is clearly a lot that befuddles me and this is because I am a seasoned lawyer and can't/

3. understand why law is not being used as the instrument it was designed for-to enforce law and order. Let us take the case of Nnamdi Kanu-this man was arraigned in Nigeria on a charge of treason/treasonable felony-he was on bail & he jumped bail. Why has he not been extradited?

4. Is it that Kanu is somehow bigger than Nigeria? What has happened to his surety who failed to produce him? Who is prosecuting him? Our Federal Ministry of Justice? Should Malami not explain to Nigeria why Nnamdi Kanu is still taunting Nigeria daily & still actively destroying/

5. our unity everyday. He is putting the lives of many people at risk and stoking ethnic dissent easily. The Fulani herdsmen dilemma, the burning of Lagos State and his coordination of same on phone-in radio channels, his videos are all stoking a Yoruba/Igbo carnage. Same with/
This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.


The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?

But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.

Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.

That is not a description of the modern UK state.

You May Also Like