Daily Archives: May 20, 2021

Its jarring enough that the Governments new law to protect free speech does nothing to protect free speech. Whats most alarming is that it actively works to undermine it.

No.10s war on woke, to give it the tiresome title used by the right-wing press, follows an established pattern. It takes universal values like free speech and then weaponises them for use by one side of the culture war. The progressive side of the cultural battlefield is silenced and the conservative side is legally safeguarded.

When the National Trust published a report into the links between colonialism and slavery at its properties, for instance, ministers flew into an extraordinary rage. Culture secretary Oliver Dowden demanded heritage bodies refrain from making statements which were not consistent with the governments position on contested historical subjects and issued a not-so-subtle threat to withdraw funding if they failed to comply. This is especially important as we enter a challenging Comprehensive Spending Review, he wrote in a letter, in which all government spending will rightly be scrutinised.

A guide to today's talking points, straight to your inbox

In universities, the Government takes the opposite approach. It aims to safeguard the rights of academics and visiting speakers against protests from students.

Section A1(10) of the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, introduced in Parliament earlier this month and which will soon be debated by MPs, defines free speech as the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences. For academics, those adverse consequences include anything that damages the likelihood of their securing promotion or different jobs.

Its worth keeping that definition in mind when you read the press release the Department for Education put out to promote the bill. As an example of the chilling effect of censorship on universities, it cited an open letter from academics critiquing a research project by Professor Nigel Biggar, in which he said that British people should have pride as well as shame in their history.

Under any normal assessment of liberal values, the open letter would itself be an instance of free speech. It did not call for Biggars research to be halted or censored. In fact, it went out of its way to affirm that he had every right to hold and to express whatever views he chooses.

But far from treating the letter as an example of free speech, the Government treated it as a threat to it because it came from progressive voices. And in doing so, it accidentally sabotaged its own legal definition.

After all, government ministers are highly influential. University authorities want to stay on the right side of them and avoid their bad side. So they are likely to support the promotion of academics the Government likes over those it does not. The Department for Educations criticism of the academics therefore potentially damaged the likelihood of them securing promotion or different jobs.

The press release is a fascinating artefact in the deterioration of governmental competence. It might be the first instance of a government breaching its own legal definition in a document intended to promote the legislation which would enforce it.

The same lopsided power dynamic applies to students who protest against a speaker coming to the university. Under any normal liberal view, both the protesters and the speaker have a right to free speech. But the government legislation protects only the speaker. It provides them with new legal remedies against universities or student unions who cancel their talks and hands the universities regulator the power to issue fines.

The bill contains no specific safeguards at all for the students demonstrating. However, other government legislation works actively to silence them. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is also going through Parliament, allows police to impose tough new conditions including dispersal, size limitation and volume control on protests whose noise levels may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation.

Its easy to write this off as a torrid little battle in the culture war, with minimal impact in the world outside universities. But there is something profound and ugly lurking within it.

Freedom of speech is one of the most demanding qualities of a liberal society. It asks everyone to sacrifice something so that we can all gain something. We lose the right to silence those we disagree with and gain the right to speak, regardless of whether people like what we have to say. Its a delicate balance, which goes against our hair-trigger emotional instincts, but rewards us with much richer first-order benefits.

By using the rhetoric of free speech to silence progressive young people, the Government is teaching them something altogether different. It is mangling free speech from a universal value into the weapon of the enemy. It is treating it as a mechanism which conservatives use to rig the game in their favour.

If it truly cared about free speech, No.10 would defend the rights of those who disagreed with it as much as those who did not. But that is not the game it is playing. It is cynically misusing basic liberal values in its pursuit of a culture war. And by doing so, it risks turning off a new generation from the principles that maintain a free society.

Read the original post:
The Government is in a mess with its free speech bill it has already sabotaged its own legal definition - iNews

Amid great controversy, this week the Government published its long-awaited Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to force universities and students unions to comply with enhanced free speech duties or face sanctions from the Office for Students and/or legal claims from individuals.

Opposition to, and support for, the Bill have broken along predictable political lines. In this blog, I want to focus on the practicalities of what the Bill would require universities to do and what action they need to take in order to be compliant with the new law. Love the new Bill or loathe it, the law is going to change and universities need to act.

Ive highlighted in bold below the action steps universities must take and the most key changes of which they need to be aware.

Core duties for universities

These are set out in sections A1 to A3 and are the most important parts of the Bill. The OfS and the new Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom will be empowered to ensure compliance with these duties, and individuals will be able to bring civil claims in relation to breaches of the A1 duty (though, note not A2 or A3).

To summarise:

1) The A1 duty is very similar to the existing s43 duty (see here this will stay on the statute books, but wont apply to English higher education providers). It requires the institutions governing body to take steps that are reasonably practicable to ensure freedom of speech within the law for its staff, members, students and visiting speakers. This includes ensuring that the use of premises isnt denied to anyone because of their ideas, beliefs or view. So far, so s43.

Whats new is the additional requirement to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech when taking the reasonably practicable steps. Its not really clear what either of those things mean in practice or whether the additional wording actually adds or modifies the duty in any meaningful way. The main case on the s43 duty involved a cancelled event where the security costs became too high perhaps the new emphasis will mean that costs have to take more of a back seat to free speech when considering what step are appropriate? Well need case law to flesh that out.

Also new is the addition of a specific objective to secure academic freedom for academic staff alongside their general right to free speech. That includes ensuring that they are not put at risk of losing their jobs, privileges or promotion prospects.

Combined with the new right to claim for losses in court arising from breaches of this duty, universities will need to be much more careful when dismissing or disciplining academics. They will also need to be careful when recruiting for academic posts, as there will be an addition new duty on universities to ensure that their application was not adversely affected by any exercise of their academic freedom.

Interestingly, the Government has chosen a rather narrow definition of academic freedom. It only covers question and testing received wisdom, and putting forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions which are: (1) within the law; and (2) within the academics field of expertise. It does not include other traditional aspects of academic freedom, such as discussing how the institution is governed or how it affiliates itself (e.g. affiliation with Stonewall is controversial among some academics). Limb (2) is also new and seems to derive (imprecisely) from international case law. This seems to be the most controversial aspect of the definition and may be refined or removed during the legislative process.

2) The A2 duty concerns the code of practice which a university must publish with a view to facilitating the A1 duty. This will be familiar to universities as they are already required to produce such a code as part of the s43 duty. However, there have been additions so universities will need to review and update their policies immediately upon the new law coming into effect. In particular, the policies must now also set out the institutions values relating to freedom of speech and an explanation of how those values uphold freedom of speech.

Further, the university must also at least once a year, bring the A1 duty and its code of practice to the attention of all students.

3) The A3 duty is entirely new. It is an active duty to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. At present, there are no further details as to what is required here, but the Government have previously mentioned a statutory code of conduct which may set out details. This may come later and/or be left to the OfS and the new Director to consulate upon and draft.

Unfortunately, a lack of guidance here will leave universities in some doubt as to what they must do, particularly if a controversy arises. For example, if one of their academics faces protests or an open letter, will they face censure or sanctions from the OfS if they do not release a statement in support of academic freedom? If they dont, it seems likely they will be facing a complaint under the new scheme (more on that below) and it will be up to the OfS and Director to scrutinise their conduct or inaction.

The first two of the above duties also apply to student unions in a similar form. Both may now be facing legal action for breach of the A1 (or equivalent) duty. This is new. Under the old regime, the only real remedy was a judicial review against a universitys decision in a s43 context. This is a complex and expensive process for individuals who ultimately would have very little prospect of achieving any compensation whatsoever. That has now changed. Not only will universities be facing the prospect of paying out compensation, they will potentially also be under threat of significant costs risks if they lose.

Important regulatory changes

There are going to be some important and significant changes to the underlying regulatory framework which govern universities. Here is a breakdown of the three most important changes:

All sanctions generally available to the OfS, including fines, will also apply here. The OfS can impose fines of up to 500,000 or two per cent of qualifying income, whichever is higher.

Conclusion

As is clear from even that brief summary, the Bill will add further complexity to university governance and will introduce significant new compliance requirements.

In particular, when disciplining and dismissing academics, universities will need to take much greater care and balance the new legal protections alongside, and perhaps against, existing law such as the Equality Act 2010. The interaction of these new rules with the specific situation of some academics (appointed under University statutes and not always employees) will need particularly careful consideration.

It also seems likely that organisations such as the Free Speech Union will use the new law to increase pressure on universities by supporting their student and academic members in threatening and pursuing claims where academic freedom and free speech issues are concerned.

Universities will need to consider carefully what the new law requires of them, and how best to mitigate the new regulatory and litigation risks to which they will likely be exposed.

Read the original here:
The new Campus Free Speech Bill - what universities need to know and need to do - Lexology

As a 25-year affiliate professor of surgery, as well as a former member of a liberal arts colleges Board of Trustees, higher education has been a long-term concern of mine. The critical task of preparing the next generation of Americans to become leaders is one of the utmost importance. Now, as the ranking member of the House Education Committee Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee, I am honored to lead on initiatives that improve American colleges and universities.

It is the overwhelming consensus that the cost of college tuition is far too high. At the end of the 4th quarter in 2020, federal student loan borrowers owed $1.57 trillion. This tremendous burden is second only to outstanding mortgage debt. More troubling, the rising cost of tuition in America has far outpaced the rise in the price of other consumer goods in the past 30 years. There are several reasons for this.

Salaries for compliance officers, diversity coaches, and all kind of other administrative staff which I more appropriately term administrative bloat have soared in recent decades. Between 1993 and 2007, these costs jumped by 61.2 percent compared to an increase of only 39.3 percent in academic instructional costs. Although most students may not use many of the unnecessary amenities offered at colleges and universities, they still foot the bill for it. Cutting these costs would save students money. There are also many new majors that offer little, if any, chance of future employment. While classes in those disciplines may be beneficial for a broad education, they do not need to be majors. Higher education has lost their way on how to spend students' monies responsibly. This reckless spending spree needs to cease.

Congress must also pass legislation allowing for short-term Pell grants. Such initiatives would enable students eligible for a federal Pell grant to choose a shorter-term program that aligns with workforce needs. Not everyone has the need, time or desire to complete a degree program, so we ought to create programs that allow one to gain the skills they need to enter, reenter or advance in the workforce. Such purposeful action would dramatically cut the time and expense of postsecondary education for individuals who choose this route and provide them with employable skills.

Competency Based Education (CBE) is another model Congress should consider supporting to cut costs of higher learning. Rather than wasting time and money in classes that duplicate knowledge students already possess, CBE allows students to progress through courses at their own pace by demonstrating mastery of course content. This has the potential to make college cheaper, faster and more personalized.

Finally, the attack on free speech on college campuses has never been greater. Of all places, college campuses should be the No. 1 safe harbor for the free and respectful exchange of ideas and beliefs. Institutions of higher learning are the arenas where competing ideas should be tested and debated. Unfortunately it has now become commonplace for some left-leaning college administrators, faculties and students to "cancel" anyone who does not share their Marxist ideologies and beliefs. Throughout the 20th century, communists rightly demanded free speech rights on college campuses. While in direct opposition to their beliefs, conservatives actually defended those rights. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for modern campus leftist radicals who feverishly attempt to shut down anyone who refutes their progressive political religion.

In an effort to secure freedom of speech on college campuses, I introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act last Congress, with plans to reintroduce in the 117th Congress. Among other things, this legislation would prohibit public institutions that participate in the federal student aid programs from violating students free speech rights.

These initiatives would be a step in the right direction for higher education in America. Cutting the cost of education and creating a more intellectually inclusive learning environment should be initiatives that everyone can get behind. It is my hope we can make some progress on these vital issues during this term.

Murphy represents the3rdDistrict of North Carolina and is the ranking member of the Education and Labor's Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee.

Read the rest here:
Cutting costs and cultivating free speech will put higher education on the right path | TheHill - The Hill

The education secretary has been accused of misrepresenting some studies when discussing the Bill (Alamy)

6 min read15 May

Several academics and university officials have questioned the evidence underpinning Gavin Williamsons new Bill aimed at ensuring free speech at UK universities.

It comes after the government introduced the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to the Commons earlier this week, which would see universities fined by the Office for Students (OfS) if they fail to uphold freedom of speech on campus.

While some have welcomed the new legislation, others have accused the education secretary of polarising the debate by selectively citing existing research in the Bills favour.

I think [the Bill] is excessive and over the top, but its inevitably more nuanced than that, Jonathan Grant, a professor of public policy at Kings College London, told PoliticsHome.

His 2019 report on the topic was among those cited in the White Paper and supporting documents for the Bill, alongside research from Policy Exchange and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

But Grant argues that his work, and the work of other academics, has been misrepresented by Williamson and the wider government in relation to this new legislation.

There's a conflation of issues in the debate, the White Paper that was published in February, and again in the Bill. And that's the conflation between so-called cancel culture and issues around the chilling effect.

Earlier this year, Grant was forced to write to The Telegraph asking for a correction after the education secretary said he was shocked by the contents of the King's study, claiming that it found a quarter of students believed violence was an acceptable response to some forms of speech.

However, the report found that this figure was comparable with the general public, where 20% held the same view.

As I joke to my student daughter that White Paper would have failed a master's dissertation on public policy, whilst the language in [the Bill] probably wouldn't have been a failure but it wouldn't have been a great mark.

Because our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare,less than 1%, but we do find concerns around the chilling effects.

The representation of other studies cited by the government have also been called into question.

Writing for The Guardian in February, Alison Scott-Baumann, professor of society and belief at Soas University of London, said the White Paper for the Bill was more about appealing to voters and capitalising on the moral panic about universities than actually helping them to protect free speech.

She pointed out that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report mentioned by the government actually concluded that there is no major crisis of free speech on campus

And, she highlighted research by the OfS which found that, out of 62,094 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or the university authorities.

Our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare.

-Jonathan Grant,professor of public policy at Kings College London

The necessity of the legislation has also been questioned across the higher education sector. Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), said she felt the Bill was using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students.

"There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, but they come from the government and university managers, not staff and students," she said.

Grady continued: The truth is that widespread precarious employment strips academics of the ability to speak and research freely, and curtails chances for career development, she said.

Free speech and academic freedom are threatened more widely on campus by government interference in the form of the Prevent duty, and attempts to impose the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism on universities.

Patrick ODonnell, president of the York University Student Union (YUSU) said his and many other universities have a strong record of encouraging debate, with a wide spread of political and campaigning societies on campus.

No student has ever contacted me to express specific concern about a free speech issue on campus, he told PoliticsHome.

Frankly, students across the country are more concerned about the woeful lack of government financial support and its disappointing to see these issues absent from the Queens Speech.

The government should work with students unions to broaden and deepen engagement with controversial views not cause students to risk assess the life out of campus.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

-Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge

But Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, said the legislation was extremely welcome as it shows that the government is taking this seriously.

He agreed, however, that the issue of cancelled events at university had been conflated in much of the dialogue around the issue.

No platforming is extremely rare, it almost never happens. And it is a very small part of this problem, it's a vanishingly small part of this problem, he said.

So, the risk of any kind of action from no platforming I think would be negligible, if indeed it's correct that is rare already.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

Ahmed added that he hoped imposing a positive duty on institutions to ensure students and staff know they can speak out will make a real change to higher education.

Commenting on the introduction of the Bill, the education secretary said: It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.

"Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they dont meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

See the rest here:
Academics And Officials Have Questioned The Evidence Behind Gavin Williamson's Excessive University Free Speech Bill - PoliticsHome

Student letters

The following letters were submitted by Blaine Middle School students in Megan Schutts eighth grade social studies class. The students were assigned to write about freedom of speech, with the understanding that letters would be published in a local newspaper. This is the final week of publishing student letters.

The Editor:

I find it funny that the people who use their right to free speech so proudly are the same people who believe others should be punished for using theirs. Take the case of Colin Kaepernick for example, where former President Donald Trump took a disliking to his peaceful protests during the national anthem.

For those unaware, on August 26, 2016, Kaepernick sat during the national anthem in protest of police brutality. I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color, he said to NFL Media. Many people thought this was or should be against the First Amendment, which is false.

Kaepernicks protests were clearly not against any laws. He did not incite violence, nor did he cause harm. He simply stated an opinion through a small action; sitting down.

As I stated before, Trump was one of the people who disagreed with Kaepernicks actions. I think its a great lack of respect and appreciation for our country and I really said they should try another country, see if they like it better. See how well theyll be doing. See if they are going to be making $20 million being a second-string quarterback, he said, according to sportingnews.com writer Tadd Haislop.

Why would Trump of all people believe he should move out of the country, or be fired? On plenty of occasions, hes spoken his mind no matter whom he would offend, and showed pride in our country having the First Amendment. Shouldnt he fight for others to use their own freedom of speech?

If youre someone who often talks about your own viewpoint on political issues as you please, consider letting others do the same.

Camryn Garcia

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

The Editor:

Schools should lower requirements on dress codes.

I understand the importance of preparing students for future jobs that may require uniforms, but shaming them for what they choose to wear is not acceptable. Dress codes target young girls, and its unacceptable. It is a girls First Amendment right to wear what she wants, as well as feel comfortable and safe.

School should be a safe place for young girls, yet girls are being told that their bodies are the reason boys around them are misbehaving. Telling a girl what to wear in relation to social constructs is a violation of her rights; the social constructs being the expectation of modesty and purity in girls.

An anonymous girl that attends a high school in the United States recently posted a paragraph titled Is Her Mid-section Showing? on a wall at her school, and it read, Women of all ages deserve to feel comfortable in their own skin and no one should have the right to tell her that by wearing those kinds of clothes, she is a distraction to the people around her. Doesnt it make more sense to teach boys to keep their eyes to themselves rather than tell the girls to hide their bodies? ... Im a 15-year-old girl. If you are sexualizing me, you are the problem. That is one of the best ways Ive heard a person explain it.

If you think that girls and women are not mistreated when it comes to clothes, keep in mind that there are millions of girls that feel unsafe in their environments. By ignoring these girls, you are making the issue worse. Men and boys, please take the time to understand and fix this. It is a girls first amendment right to feel comfortable, while wearing what she wants.

Brianna McGee

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

Read more from the original source:
Letters to the Editor: May 20-26, 2021 - Blaine Northern Light

Kate Brumback| Associated Press

ATLANTA Georgias sweeping new overhaul of election laws threatens the fundamental right to vote, freedom of speech and the separation of powers, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit against the secretary of state and the members of the State Election Board was filed in federal court in Atlanta by county election board members, individual voters, election volunteers, nonprofit organizations and a journalist. It joins a half dozen other legal challenges, asking a judge to declare parts of the new election law unconstitutional and to prohibit the state from enforcing them.

Liberty requires at least three essential things an unfettered right to vote, freedom of speech, and the meaningful separation of powers, the lawsuit says. This lawsuit is necessary to preserve individual constitutional rights, and constitutional government, against the attacks that (the law) makes on these three pillars of liberty.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accused the Coalition for Good Governance, an election integrity advocacy group that is one of the plaintiffs, of spreading disinformation about the new law.

"We look forward to defeating another frivolous lawsuit, Raffensperger said in an emailed statement.

More: Georgia Gov. Kemp, voting chief Raffensperger defend election overhaul law

More: What does Georgia's new voting law SB 202 do?

One of the most significant changes in the new law is that it removes the secretary of state as chair of the State Election Board, replacing that elected official with a chair selected by the General Assembly. It also allows the state board to remove county election superintendents a combined election and registration board in most counties without providing much notice or giving them a meaningful chance to defend against their removal, and then allows the state board to appoint a single person in their place, the lawsuit says. While election boards are subject to requirements of Georgia's open meetings law, replacing them with a single person would mean that decisions would be made by that one person without the transparency of a public meeting, the lawsuit says.

In counties where the election and registration boards are separate, the election board is the superintendent. While the law provides for a replacement to be appointed for a removed superintendent, it does not provide for the appointment of a replacement for the board of registrars, which could leave a county without anyone to do that important work, the lawsuit says.

Another part of the law that has gotten a lot of attention and that has been challenged in other lawsuits because of assertions that it makes it more difficult to vote is a change in the identification verification requirement for absentee ballots. Instead of signing their ballot envelopes to be verified by election workers, voters must provide their name, date of birth, address and drivers license or state ID card number.

Rather than enhancing security as the laws sponsors and Raffensperger have asserted, this change creates the potential for fraud, vote dilution and identity theft, the lawsuit says. The personal identification information required by the new law can be easily stolen, opening the possibility for ballots to be requested and cast using voters' names and information without their knowledge, the lawsuit says.

The new law makes it a felony to intentionally observe an elector while casting a ballot in a manner that would allow such person to see for whom or what the elector is voting." But the large touchscreen voting machines Georgia uses make it hard for anyone in a polling place to avoid seeing a voter's selections, leaving voters and observers open to a felony charge that could discourage their participation, the lawsuit says.

The new law says monitors and observers cannot communicate any information that they see while monitoring the processing and scanning of absentee ballots to anyone other than an election official. It also makes it a misdemeanor for those monitors and observers to tally, tabulate, estimate votes. Those provisions mean that observers, including news reporters, would run the risk of criminal charges for reporting on absentee ballot processing, tabulation problems or progress, the lawsuit says.

The law also makes it a misdemeanor to photograph or record the face of a touchscreen voting machine while it is being used to vote or while a voters selections are displayed. News media frequently shoot photos and video of people voting and this provision would criminalize constitutionally protected speech, the lawsuit says.

Under the new law, the window to request an absentee ballot shrinks from 180 days before election day to 78 days before an election and closes 11 days before election day. That means voters who have an unforeseen emergency within 11 days of an election will be disenfranchised, and it also means that absentee voting will be impossible in some runoff elections, the lawsuit says.

The provisions that allow the State Election Board to replace local election officials are egregious and dangerous to every concept of free and fair elections, said Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance. And parts of the law that criminalize practices of citizen and press oversight of elections are abhorrent to modern democratic societies, she said.

Read the rest here:
Federal lawsuit targets Georgia voting law, citing threat to voting, speech rights - Online Athens

ROD LIDDLE: I am honoured to be speaking to you, Peter, on this anniversary of 50 years of causing havoc with the British establishment. Youre one of very few political heroes of mine. I know very few people in the country who are as committed to what they believe in as you. Now a film is being made about your life, isnt it? Its going to be on Netflix and its called Hating Peter Tatchell, which a lot of people have done over the years. How did that come about?

PETER TATCHELL: The film maker, Chris Amos, approached me several years ago and said, No one has ever made a film about you and about your 50-plus years of campaigning, I want to do it. So, I thought, well why not?

RL: Im just hoping that somewhere along the way you make some money out of this, Pete, because you havent done much for yourself in the last 50 years. Are you going to get any dosh out of this?

PT: The film was made on a shoestring so I dont think anybody is going to be getting much money out of it.

RL: Lets go back to the beginning. Youre Australian, born in Melbourne and came here as an act of cowardice, I might point out, Mr Tatchell, to avoid the draft in 1971-ish.

PT: Not entirely. Well, first of all, I left Australia because I had a moral and political objection to Australias involvement in the Vietnam war. I regard that as an unjust war so I wasnt prepared to serve.

RL: A catastrophic war, yes.

PT: Probably I should have stayed and gone to prison but yes, youre right, I cowardly left the country and came to Britain.

RL: My guess is that your political journey has always been rooted in that time of revolution, upheaval and awareness, which sprang out across Europe particularly in 68, is that roughly right?

PT: Well, my first political awareness was much earlier in 1963, when I was aged 11, I heard about the bombing of a black church in Birmingham, Alabama, where four young girls about my own age were murdered. So that motivated me to support and be inspired by the Black Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King. But my first real actual protest was in 1967 when I was aged 15 and still at high school. Ronald Ryan, an escaped convict, was due to be hanged for the alleged shooting dead of a prison warder during an escape and, having read the autopsy report on the dead warders body, which was published in the local newspaper, I worked out that it would have been almost impossible for Ryan to have fired the fatal shot. The bullet would have had to do almost a U-turn in mid-air. So that got me involved in the campaign to try to stop his execution.

RL: And that was at 15, Peter, that you read an autopsy report this is remarkable!

PT: In my mind there was at least a reasonable doubt about his guilt, but sadly he was hanged anyway, and it provoked a real crisis for me. I became a lifelong sceptic of authority. I thought to myself if the government, the police and the judges are prepared to hang this man, where there is at least some doubt about his guilt, I cant trust them any more. I have to question everything. So that led me to question Australias ill-treatment of the indigenous Aboriginal people, it led me to question Australias involvement in the Vietnam war, and it led me to question the persecution of gay people when I realised I was gay in 1969, aged 17.

RL: One of the wonderful things about you if I can I think the phrase is blow smoke up your ass youve always stuck to your principles about freedom of speech, and looking at each issue separately and never taking the easy line on it.

PT: My mother, a pretty hard-line Christian evangelical, always taught me to stand up for what I believe to be right and to not go along with the crowd. Now she meant that I think in a mostly religious sense, but I took it in a much broader sense.

RL: You were defeated as the Labour candidate for Bermondsey in 1983, and it stuck in my mind for these last 40-odd years that you were unjustly subjected to an appallingly homophobic campaign, which was won in the end by Simon Hughes, who turned out to be gay!

PT: The irony, the irony! But it was a very, very tough election. I mean some commentators have since said that it was probably the dirtiest and certainly well, probably the dirtiest, the most violent and most homophobic election in Britain in the second half of the 20th century. I mean, I had over 150 physical violent assaults when I was out canvassing, with people punching me in the face, spitting on me. I had a bullet through the front door, one arson attempt, it was a very, very scary time.

RL: That is incredible, I didnt know the full detail of all that. What did it teach you, that imbroglio with Simon Hughes and with the residents of Bermondsey?

PT: One thing it taught me was the power of the tabloid press. When I began the campaign I was way ahead, according to opinion polls, on 47 per cent of the vote. In the course of that election campaign, the constant barrage of misrepresentation, smears and so on, just whittled that support away. It made me very conscious of the importance of having a fair, accurate, responsible media. Thats absolutely essential for a democracy. The other thing it taught me of course was just how deeply homophobia was embedded in our society.

***

RL: Not once but twice you did a citizens arrest on Robert Mugabe. What was your objection to Big Bob?

PT: Where to start! Well, those arrest attempts were in response to appeals from human rights defenders inside Zimbabwe for me to do something to help highlight his human rights abuses. There was a whole gamut of things but the arrest attempts were predicated on the charge of torture.

RL: Didnt you also try to arrest Mugabe in Brussels as well? And werent you beaten up then as well?

PT: In the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, but then, yes, I was really badly beaten up by Mugabes bodyguards.

RL: Isnt that something which has had a lasting effect?

PT: It is, yes. I was ultimately briefly knocked unconscious and it has left me with some brain and eye damage which was compounded again in 2007 when I was attacked by neo-Nazis in Moscow.

RL: Yes, again, this was campaigning against Putins what you would see as a homophobic regime presumably?

PT: Yes I went to Russia on the invitation of Russian LGBT+ activists who were trying to hold a pride parade in Moscow. Thats perfectly lawful under Russias constitution and law but it had been banned. So we tried to march anyway, and a lot of people were seized by the police and arrested. Others like me got away, but we were eventually caught by neo-Nazis and very badly beaten.

RL: Back to Mugabe werent you quite pleased in 1981 when he won the election and became the leader of Zimbabwe?

PT: I was.

RL: And you didnt worry about what sort of man he was? I spoke to Ian Smith on the day Mugabe was elected and Smith said He is a tyrant who will abuse peoples human rights and turn Zimbabwe into a basket case. The right is sometimes right

PT: Well, that may be the case in this instance. Quite clearly it was untenable for black people to be denied the right to vote and for a system of quasi-apartheid to exist in Zimbabwe, so to have black majority rule was the right thing and initially, of course, Mugabe did lots of good positive things for the poor and the landless.

RL: But he was a totalitarian Marxist, Pete.

PT: Well, you can have Marxists who are democratic.

RL: Name me one?

PT: Well, there arent many.

RL: Not many indeed!

PT: What about Tom Wintringham, probably the greatest British Marxist of the 20th century, who was years and years ahead on the Nazi threat and the need to mobilise the British people in what he called a peoples war against the Third Reich? Many of his ideas were subsequently adopted by the Churchill government.

RL: But there is Marxism as an academic discipline and a means of thinking about things and there is Marxism when it gets its hands on the levers of power. I would have guessed that given the examples of Marxism in power in the last 70 years, you would be a bit averse to that mode of thinking now?

PT: Left-wing ideals in principle are fine and I uphold them, but so often in practice they are turned into a new form of tyranny and that is not what they should be about.

RL: What has happened to the far left? And what are its problems?

PT: The far left isnt all bad, but there are some people there who are supporting very bad tyrants and very bad policies. So, for example, it shocks me that most of the left in general has been silent and inactive against the Assad regime in Syria. I think thats quite shameful. Syria is the equivalent of Spain in the 1930s; its a litmus test of where you stand. A lot of people on the left rightly condemn Saudi Arabia and its war crimes

RL: And Israel, Peter.

PT: And Israel, yes.

RL: More than Saudi Arabia, more than Syria, more than any other country they condemn Israel, and youve condemned Israel.

PT: What Im criticising is the double standards. They condemn Saudi war crimes in Yemen but not Russian and Iranian war crimes in Syria thats double standards.

RL: Then theres identity politics. We become compartmentalised into these various silos of victimhood, dont we?

PT: I think the right is wrong to criticise identity politics. It is legitimate for people to campaign around specific instances of discrimination, whether it be racism or misogyny, but its also important to remember our common humanity, the things that unite us.

RL: Thats the point, isnt it? Surely you must see that there is a culture war going on which does divide people? And it may well be that that culture war is one of the reasons that the Labour party failed at the 2019 election, because an awful lot of people rejected that obsessive identitarian approach to politics. Do you reject it as well, or are you really at heart an identitarian?

PT: I wouldnt describe myself as identitarian, but I do think identity politics has been necessary in order to address issues that were being ignored by mainstream politics. It is only when women organised to demand specific rights and freedoms that eventually politicians and parliament began the process of change.

RL: But were there, arent we? Much as we may be there with gay equality, Pete. For example, I saw that the NUS recently said that gay people were not a victimised minority but were actually privileged and possessed many of the privileges that oppress other minority groups. The whole thing seems to be eating itself.

PT: I think we have to be very careful about the way sections of the left tend to demand absolute purity. None of us is perfect.

RL: But the trouble is, Pete, your whole career, your whole life of campaigning has held freedom of speech in enormous esteem, but there is an awful lot of the left which believes debate is otiose and that freedom of speech is an overrated commodity.

PT: It isnt just a left failing, but you are right I mean freedom of speech is one of the most important and precious of all human rights. Causing offence sometimes is involved in genuine freedom of speech. I stand by that however, there are certain red lines. I think if someone makes false, damaging allegations like saying someone is a rapist or a paedophile, then

RL: Or a racist.

PT: Or a racist, if it is untrue and unfounded, thats not freedom of speech. If someone engages in threats, menaces and harassment, thats not freedom of speech. And particularly if someone engages in incitement to violence, thats not freedom of speech. I think that generally the best way to deal with bad ideas is with good ideas. So for example, when there were calls to ban Germaine Greer, I said dont ban her, find a speaker to speak against her, protest outside the meeting, show why shes wrong.

RL: But Peter, debate and freedom of speech are bourgeois and they are a reflection of white privilege and not everybody has access to that freedom of speech etc, etc

PT: Well, that is true but there are also many on the right who take the same

RL: Come on, Im not sticking up for the right here, Im a socialist for fucks sake.

PT: Well, there is a trend towards placing limits on freedom of speech, but I think it is somewhat exaggerated. Most students in surveys say that they value freedom of speech, including the freedom of speech of people with whom they disagree.

RL: This is where we differ, I suppose. I think that censoriousness is spreading. But perhaps you have a tendency towards utopianism? About five or six years ago you said that Muslims and gays should join together as being similarly oppressed. I remember thinking: What effing planet are you on, Pete? Isnt that kind of unrealisable?

PT: Well, I know its realisable because Ive seen it in the campaign work that I do. My challenge to the Muslim community is to recognise the common experience of prejudice, discrimination and hate crime that they face in common with LGBT+ people. Of course its different, but its still a common thread of prejudice.

RL: Can I break in there? Fair enough and a fair point, but what I really meant was: when are you going to go on a gay pride march in Ramallah?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea.

RL: Are you a masochist?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea with some Palestinian activists and they said it was too dangerous for them and I shouldnt go there.

RL: Yes, but what do you learn from that? You are attacking Israel at the moment, which is a democracy, which allows Arabs to vote in its democracy; the only country where Arabs are allowed to vote and where you can have a gay pride march through Tel Aviv.

PT: Yes, undoubtedly there are still serious problems with the Palestinian territories, particularly Hamas-controlled Gaza youd better not be gay there. Ive helped gay people flee Gaza and seen the abuses and torture inflicted on them by Hamas police and security agents

***

RL: Lastly, I know youve spoken out on the Qatari World Cup previously are there any plans afoot for campaigning against that over the next year?

PT: There are but they have to remain confidential! Certainly Im working a lot behind the scenes with Qataris, not just LGBT Qataris but also human rights defenders, womens rights activists, labour union campaigners and so on, to keep Qatar and its human rights abuses up on the agenda. It is scandalous that Fifa ever agreed to allow Qatar to have the World Cup in the first place.

RL: Its not really scandalous, its corrupt.

PT: Yes, well there are very serious allegations that Qatar was corruptly awarded the World Cup based on bribes.

RL: Yes, no question at all. And I think these enormous events in future will tend to be held in totalitarian countries because these are the countries that can ride roughshod over all objections to those events and which are able to exploit their workforces so that they are done quite cheaply.

PT: Just before I forget, did you hear about the case of the pastor who was arrested in Boris Johnsons constituency?

RL: No, sorry, what was that?

PT: His name was Pastor John Sherwood, I think. He was arrested for preaching in a shopping centre that homosexuality was sinful and he said himself that he was a sinner, but the police said there had been complaints and arrested him quite roughly and I think totally disgracefully breaching his right to free speech. Ive offered to testify in his defence even though obviously I disagree with his views on homosexuality.

RL: He was presumably just quoting from Revelation or something.

PT: Yes, he wasnt being inflammatory or threatening, he wasnt being hateful, he was simply expressing a point of view. I found it disagreeable but I dont think he should be the subject of arrest and prosecution.

RL: He sounds a bit like my mother-in-law, who hands out leaflets that say much the same thing and when she meets a gay or transgender person says God doesnt hate you, he just hates what you do. Peter, it was lovely to talk to you, as always thank you so much.

PT: Likewise. Tell her shed better watch out under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: annoying people is a potential offence!

RL: Its a potential offence, yes, thats right! That says it all really.

Hating Peter Tatchell is available on Netflix

Continued here:
Culture wars, identity politics and free speech: Rod Liddle and Peter Tatchell in conversation - Spectator.co.uk