Category Archives: Free Speech

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

This is a call to action for all Americans to rise and defend Free Speech and the First Amendment:

America's tradition of civil discourse has been trodden down by government overreach that implements policies like face masks and social distancing. Consider the damage:

The first step in getting started is to put yourself on record. Not everyone volunteers, but some will. Not everyone donates, but some can. Not everyone can reach thousands, but everyone can reach someone. We need each other because only together can we do great things. There is no time to wait, so please join us today!

If you check the Volunteer box below, we will encourage you to attend our signature training to fine-tune your communication skills. Based on Mary Baker's book, Citizen Ninja: Stand up to Power, our highly-successful training teaches you the basic principles of civil discourse needed to be a successful local activist and persuasive communicator in your own community.

This is easier than you think, but only you can throw the switch inside your own head and heart. It doesn't matter how much you compromised or failed in the past. It doesn't matter if you are strong or weak, educated or uneducated, talented or not talented or just lack confidence. Our training program will give you the strength, knowledge and confidence that you need to exercise your First Amendment freedoms. Our Volunteer program will give you tools, materials and strategies on how to effectively communicate in your own community.

CFFS is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.

CountryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, the Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraaoCyprusCzech RepublicCte d'IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorth Macedonia, Republic ofNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRunionSaint BarthlemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweland Islands

Visit link:
Citizens for Free Speech

"It's not a matter of if..." warns epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding when asked if the Omicron variant of Covid-19 will bury the already over full hospitals. "We haven't even seen the worst of this." The Omicron Variant is here, and it is spreading fast.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the latest news of the Omicron variant, how the omicron wave will affect the United States, future COVID lockdowns and the need to get tested every single day.

Dr. Feigl-Ding is an Epidemiologist & Senior Fellow-Federation of American Scientists, former faculty member & researcher-Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Coronavirus COVID-19 Eric Feigl-Ding Omicron The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Vaccine

See more here:
Will Omicron Overwhelm the US? - Free Speech TV

In 1993 and 1994, talk-radio hosts in Rwanda calling for bloodshed helped create the atmosphere that led to genocide. The Clinton administration could have jammed the radio signals and taken those broadcasts off the air, but Pentagon lawyers decided against it, citing free speech. Its true that the propagandists speech would have been curtailed. Its also possible that a genocide would have been averted.

I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What Im arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks.

The Constitution prevents the government from using sticks, but it says nothing about carrots.

Congress could fund, for example, a national campaign to promote news literacy, or it could invest heavily in library programming. It could build a robust public media in the mold of the BBC. It could rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act the rule that essentially allows Facebook and YouTube to get away with (glorification of) murder. If Congress wanted to get really ambitious, it could fund a rival to compete with Facebook or Google, the way the Postal Service competes with FedEx and U.P.S.

Or the private sector could pitch in on its own. Tomorrow, by fiat, Mark Zuckerberg could make Facebook slightly less profitable and enormously less immoral: He could hire thousands more content moderators and pay them fairly. Or he could replace Sheryl Sandberg with Susan Benesch, a human rights lawyer and an expert on how speech can lead to violence. Social media companies have shown how quickly they can act when under pressure. After every high-profile eruption of violence Charlottesville, Christchurch and the like tech companies have scrambled to ban inflammatory accounts, take down graphic videos, even rewrite their terms of service. Some of the most egregious actors, such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, have been permanently barred from all major platforms.

We need to protect the rights of speakers, John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, but what about protecting everyone else? Mr. Powell was the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and he represented the Ku Klux Klan in federal court. Racists should have rights, he explained. I also know, being black and having black relatives, what it means to have a cross burned on your lawn. It makes no sense for the law to be concerned about one and ignore the other.

Mr. Powell, in other words, is a free-speech advocate but not a free-speech absolutist. Shortly before his tenure as legal director, he said, when women complained about sexual harassment in the workplace, the A.C.L.U.s response would be, Sorry, nothing we can do. Harassment is speech. That looks ridiculous to us now, as it should. He thinks that some aspects of our current First Amendment jurisprudence blanket protections of hate speech, for example will also seem ridiculous in retrospect. Its simpler to think only about the First Amendment and to ignore, say, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees full citizenship and equal protection to all Americans, including those who are harmed by hate speech, he said. Its simpler, but its also wrong.

Read more:
Opinion | Free Speech Is Killing Us - The New York Times

Free speech What is freedom of speech, and what does it protect?

Freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. The term speech constitutes expression that includes far more than just words, but also what a person wears, reads, performs, protests and more. In the United States, freedom of speech is strongly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as many state and federal laws. The United States free speech protections are among the strongest of any democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that many would see as offensive, hateful or harassing.

The Constitution prohibits UC Berkeley, as a public institution, from banning or punishing speech based on its content or viewpoint. Because campus policy permits Registered Student Organizations to invite speakers to campus and provides access to campus venues for that purpose, the university cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Doing so would violate the First Amendment rights of the student group. Only under extraordinary circumstances, described below in the Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment? section, can an event featuring a speaker invited this way be cancelled. Secondly, once a speaker has been invited by a student group, the campus is obligated and committed to acting reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

The Supreme Court has said that public entities like UC Berkeley have discretion in regulating the time, place, and manner of speech. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The campus can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety. When it comes to controversial speakers, UC Berkeley invokes this necessary authority in order to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chance that an event will proceed successfully and that the campus community will not be made unsafe. The campus heeds its police departments assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events. The campus might invoke its time, place and manner discretion, for example, to ensure that an event with a highly controversial speaker would be held in a venue that the campus police force believes to be protectable (e.g. one with an ample number of exits, with the ability to be cordoned off, without floor to ceiling glass, etc.). The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason that we require students to work with the administration when setting up their events, as opposed to scheduling and creating the events on their own without campus input.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech by default, placing the burden on the state to demonstrate whether there are any circumstances that justify its limitation. When it comes to controversial speakers delivering remarks on campus, the relevant exceptions to the First Amendment that have been established are:

The term hate speech does not have a legal definition in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender. While the university condemns speech of this kind, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment and it is only illegal if it falls into one of the categories described above. In fact, on many occasions, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that prohibitions or punishments for hateful speech violate the First Amendment. Just because there is a First Amendment right to say something, however, doesnt mean that it should be said. The First Amendment protects a right to say hateful things, but as a campus we strive to be a community where no one will choose to express hate.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a public institution like UC Berkeley cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs is called a prior restraint, and prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed. While the campus is constitutionally required and committed to doing what it can to protect speakers and to prevent disruption or violence, if despite all efforts by the campus there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, a speakers event can be cancelled. This is a last resort, and never done based on the views of the speaker. The campuss paramount need is to protect the safety of its students, staff and faculty.

Absolutely. Berkeley supports the notion of a marketplace of ideas, in which speech that a person disagrees with should be met with more speech that engages and debates it. The First Amendment and the university are founded on the premise that we are all better off if ideas can be expressed and responded to, rather than be subject to an imposed orthodoxy of belief and punished for deviating from it. Free speech is particularly important to a university like Berkeley whose goal is the discovery and establishment of truth. Many ideas now fundamental to our understanding of the universe and our place in it such as evolution or climate change were initially attacked. Freedom of speech is so important to the university that one of the universitys bedrock principles is academic freedom, which protects faculty in their research and teaching, as well as the speech of students.

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) refers to a period in 1964 when UC Berkeley students successfully fought against an administrative ban on on-campus political activities. The FSM sparked a wave of student activism that became a core part of the campuss identity through the Vietnam War and far beyond. One of the lessons of the FSM for Berkeley and across the country was that academic freedom means that student speech also is essential and protected. Learn more about the movement at fsm.berkeley.edu.

When there is a threat of violence in our community, the Berkeley administration works closely with student affairs staff, UCPD, the City of Berkeley and/or other groups to develop and communicate safety plans to the campus. Generally, we advise that if students see violence occurring, they should separate themselves from it, report what they see to police and follow police instructions. When events are occurring that have the potential to endanger students, UCPD uses the text and email messaging service Nixle to keep the campus informed about developments in real time. Additionally, Berkeley offers many resources, including counseling services, for students who have been affected physically, mentally or emotionally by such events. Visit deanofstudents.berkeley.edu/well-being for more information.

No stand down order has ever been issued by UCPD, or ever will be. Tactical response decisions are made by UCPD command on the scene of an event or incident, based on our prioritization of student and public safety. At times, this requires a difficult but appropriate real-time assessment that efforts to effect arrests would likely lead to numerous serious injuries, or worse, among innocent bystanders. For more information on the guidelines and values that govern policing on the UC campuses, see the 2012 Robinson-Edley report.

The Constitution, and its protection of rights, applies only to the government. Public universities are directly bound by the First Amendment to uphold the right to free speech. Because private schools are not state actors, those schools administrations may generally impose whatever restrictions they wish on speech or on visitors to campus. Additional laws may also guide their actions, however; in California, for example, a state statute says that private universities cannot punish speech that the First Amendment prevents from being punished in public universities.

Several public universities have recently denied requests from white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak on their campuses, citing the violence in Charlottesville as cause to invoke prior restraint in the name of public safety. We are not aware of any public university that has cancelled an already scheduled appearance, or an invitation issued by a legally independent student group. It should also be noted that in previous attempts to block Spencer from speaking on campuses, he has sued those campuses and won. Lawsuits have already been filed against some of the public universities that recently denied Spencers requests. Cancelling events must be a last resort to be used only when the campus, despite taking all reasonable steps, believes that it cannot protect the safety of its students, staff and faculty. Events can never legally be canceled based on the likely offensiveness of the speakers message.

If UC Berkeley were to illegally cancel the talk of a speaker invited by a student group, it could be sued by the speaker or by the student group. A court could issue an order requiring the campus to allow the speaker. The court could also potentially award money damages to the speaker and student group, and the campus, if it loses such a lawsuit, would also be liable for paying the attorney fees of the speaker and student group. There are many instances, including in California, where public universities have been sued in exactly this way when they have tried to exclude speakers.

The current event policy, which underwent changes in the summer of 2017, can be found on the dean of students website. The policy is designed to be consistent with the universitys paired commitments to free speech as well as to the safety and well-being of students, other members of the campus community, their guests and the public. These key elements of the previous policy have been retained:

At the same time, the new, interim policy proposes changes and additions that include:

The university does not charge student groups different fees to host speakers based on the invited speaker or the content of his or her speech. Doing so would constitute a breach of students First Amendment rights. As is the case with all events that student groups host, those groups must reimburse the campus for the cost of basic event security. These security charges are calculated based on neutral, objective criteria having nothing to do with the speakers perspectives, prior conduct on other campuses and/or expected protests by those who stand in opposition to him or her.

Yes activism is very much part of our campus DNA, and we encourage expression in protest of other expression. The campus encourages all who engage in protest activity to do so safely. Below are some reminders for how to protest safely:

As discussed above in the section What are time, place and manner restrictions? How do they relate to controversial speakers?, the Supreme Court has said that public entities like UC Berkeley have discretion in regulating the time, place and manner of speech. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. These restrictions do not vary depending on the views or ideas being expressed; rather they are about ensuring that speech occurs in a way that does not disrupt the campuss educational mission or endanger public safety. The university has developed rules and regulations related to protest that are designed to prevent substantial disruption of educational activities, protect lawful access to campus programs and facilities, avoid unsafe behavior and prevent the destruction of property. Their application does not vary according to the cause or content of a particular protest, speech, or other form of expression, and the rules and regulations are designed to enable extensive opportunity for expressive activity. Learn more about these regulations on the UCPD website.

Any member of the UC Berkeley campus community (student, staff, or faculty) may submit an event for listing in the UC Berkeley Calendar Network. Events must take place at UC Berkeley, or be sponsored by a department or recognized group at UC Berkeley.

See more here:
Frequently asked questions Free Speech

Abdulai Mansaray: Serra Leone Telegraph: 19 December 2021:

The Sierra Leone Criminal Libel Law was introduced by Sir Albert Margai of the SLPP in 1965. Undoubtedly, it became one of the most draconian sledgehammers used to muzzle and zip up opposition parties and dissenting media voices.

The APC party vociferously opposed the law then, but the late Siaka Stevens perfected the dark art on assuming power in 1968. It became his sharpest tool of choice, in the arsenal of his One -Party rule. Despite numerous promises to repeal this law in election manifestoes, successive governments continued to wield this sword of Damocles as antidote to democracy.

The fact that it took 55 years and an SLPP President Bio to repeal this anti-democratic law is not only ironic but self-owned. Freedom of speech is the palm oil with which democracy is eaten and repealing the criminal libel law was a milestone in our history.

President Bio deserves all the plaudits he can get. But does the recent spate of arrests, questionings and detentions put his legacy at risk? isnt it ironic that President Bio, who championed the repeal of the Criminal Libel Law is presiding over a period that has seen political opponents frogmarched to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), for voicing their objections to some of his policies?

Does this this give credence to the notion that freedom of speech is no guarantee for freedom after speech?

Media reports stated that Ms Diana F Konomanyi, the Eastern Regional Chairman of the APC and Ms Femi C. Cole, chairman of the Unity Party were arrested and detained (the Sierraleonetelegraph.com-13/12/21). While Dr Dennis Bright of NGC was a guest at the Police HQ on 7/12/21 for speaking out against the controversial mid term census, Ms Konomanyi was roped in for an alleged video she released; calling on her Kono kindred to boycott the controversial midterm census.

Ms Cole endured a similar fate for similar claims, while chaperoning her colleague to the CID. Other political personalities are rumoured to have had similar experiences. Does it look like freedom of speech is under attack from supposedly, the High Priest of freedom of speech?

So, what is free speech or freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech can come in different shades, depending on individual perceptions. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Human Rights Law, the United Nations recognised Freedom of Expression as a Human Right; a principle that supports an individual or community to articulate their opinions and views without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction (Student Companion). To others, it is the right to tell others what they dont want to hear. By arresting or detaining Ms Diana, Ms Cole, Dr Bright and others for expressing their views, did Bios administration breach their human rights? If so, is President Bio giving with one hand and taking with the other?

But lets remember that every right has responsibilities. We measure our rights against the inherent responsibilities that come with such rights. One has the right to remain stupid, just as others the right to rebel against that stupidity.

Sierra Leoneans have the right to vote, and that right comes with civic and moral responsibilities. Responsibility is the price we must pay in exchange for freedoms. Does the right to freedom of speech give anyone the right to falsely shout FIRE in a crowded cinema hall?

President Bios reign is painted in accusations, ranging from tribalism, nepotism, corruption etc predominantly by the opposition. President Bios SLPP supporters and sympathisers alike, accuse the opposition APC of trying to make the country ungovernable. APC members/supporters have at various times, allegedly encouraged their following to engage in civil disobedience; in protest to some of Bios policies.

Members of both parties have resorted to trading insults (mammy Cuss) in musical lyrics and on the social media Stock Exchange. With neither party showing any appetite to discourage or condemn such abhorrent acts is suggestive of how low and kindergarten our politics has become. Silence can mean consent.

Like others, it is Ms Dianas inalienable right to oppose the mid-term census. But does that include asking a whole district to boycott a national exercise, irrespective of the inherent controversies? Many accuse her of vigilante politics and question why she didnt do the same when Ernest created Kerana and Falaba Districts prior to the 2016 midterm census?

The SLPP won the Presidential elections, not the parliamentary elections. And that is not lost on the SLPP. Dig it? There are reports that some enumerators were chased with machetes in some parts of the country; just for asking someone their names and dates of birth. If true, this shows the potential dangers of lacing our views, rights or whatever with rocket fuel.

It is understandable for Bios administration to consider Ms Dianas behaviour as an act of sabotage. Who would you blame if there were loss of lives? Would that have been worth it? The fact is, should the APC throw the baby out of the pram, each time it faces a political gridlock from the SLPP?

This is not justification for President Bios selective hearing impairment to opposition concerns either. But there are better ways of getting under, over and around our political differences. Using the ever suffering and gullible electorate as pawns on their political chessboard is not only callous but selfish.

This is the kind of behaviour that has left many wondering whether our political landscape needs adult supervision. We can express our political differences without the need for mammy cuss as the main currency. The First Lady Fatima Bio was forced to publicly express her pain at being the subject of virulent Mammy Cuss during the victory lap of the newly elected SLPP Womens Leader Hawa Foray.

President Bio reprimanded Fatima for washing the dirty linen in public. Perhaps she did so because Ngor Bio has not been listening to her pillow talk. By virtue of her character, her position or role, she has been controversial. But irrespective of her controversies, Fatima Bio, like anyone else does not deserve such levels abuse. She is a woman for Gods sake. Like or loathe her, you have the ballot box to make your feelings known, if you choose to.

Is President Bio at risk of destroying his well-earned legacy of repealing the criminal libel law?

No one is questioning the APCs right to cast doubts or question the midterm census, for fear of political gymnastics. It takes one to know one and cunning die. But that shouldnt be a carte blanche to promote, incite and support unrests in the country; all in the guise of free speech.

We shouldnt demand freedom of speech as compensation for our freedom of thought, which we seldom use. Equally, this does not give the Bio administration the right to arbitrarily arrest those who share views or opinions it doesnt like. Such actions might put Bios legacy with Criminal Libel Law at risk of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

No one doubts the frustration, the sense of injustice, the threats and fear of persecution that comes with being in the opposition. No one questions the perceived injustices, discriminations, and unfair advantages that come with being in the opposition. But does that mean that we should continue to use the electorate, who by the way bear the brunt of the ineptitude of our politicians, as pawns of their political chessboard?

There is no doubt that freedom of speech is a difficult balancing act with very thin lines between democracy and tyranny. It can be difficult to soar with eagles when you fly with crows. But it can be done. with a common sense of purpose.

Our two main parties never cease to tell us how bad and unfit the other is at governing. Ironically, not only do they use each other as standards or yardsticks to demonstrate their differences, but also as litmus test to measure their individual fitness to govern. How do you gauge your success against a failing or failed opponent as standard? Try Singapore or Rwanda to measure your success.

In the meantime, the APC could do with officially naming their flagbearer; except if they want to risk another round of you sabi am?. Indecision can lose opportunities; and dreams can be destroyed during moments of indecision. Sometimes the key to success is doing what should be done, even if you dont feel like doing it.

Our lives begin to end the day we remain silent about the things that matter (MLK)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. Dont forget to turn the lights out when you leave the room.

Like Loading...

Related

See the rest here:
The paradox of free speech and the libel criminal Law - Sierra Leone Telegraph

In the recent case of Forstater vs CGD, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) held that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. What does this mean for employers?

GCD decided not to renew Ms Forstaters fixed-term contract following complaints by colleagues about her comments on social media regarding proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. These proposals (since dropped) would have allowed men to self-identify as women and vice versa. Ms Forstater said the decision not to renew her contract was discrimination on the basis of her gender critical beliefs: namely that biological sex is real, cannot change, and is not the same as gender identity. She claimed under the Equality Act 2010, which protects religious and certain other philosophical beliefs.

Ms Forstater initially lost in the employment tribunal. However, the EAT overturned that decision. Her appeal was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the free speech body Index on Censorship.

What is the difference between sex and gender identity in the workplace?

Under the Equality Act, the relevant protected characteristics are sex and gender reassignment. Gender reassignment applies to someone proposing to undergo, undergoing or who has undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. They do not need to undergo surgery or other treatment, and many do not.

Employers must not confuse sex with gender identity or gender reassignment. A persons legal sex does not change unless they have a gender recognition certificate (and even then not for all purposes).

The EAT noted the importance of free speech and diversity of thought and said that beliefs should be protected unless aimed at the destruction of others rights and freedoms for example, Nazi beliefs. It said that Ms Forstaters beliefs were not close to that threshold. On the contrary, it recognised her views are widely held, consistent with current law on sex and gender, and dont inherently damage the rights of trans people.

The EAT recognised that Ms Forstaters views may upset or offend some people, but said that does not make them unlawful. These comments are important for those with gender critical beliefs and more generally for future cases on a range of philosophical beliefs.

Employees with gender critical beliefs are protected from discrimination and harassment in the same way as those with religious or other protected philosophical beliefs, and other protected characteristics such as sex, race and gender reassignment.

The employment tribunal will now consider whether the non-renewal of Ms Forstaters contract was because of her belief or whether it was because of the way in which she manifested that belief and if so, whether it was discrimination. In practice, this is always highly case-specific.

The key points for employers are:

Employers should also note that in collecting diversity data the relevant question should be about sex, not gender, with the options of female, male and prefer not to say. An optional question on gender identity may be added but must not replace that on sex.

Rebecca Bull is a solicitor in private practice, and a director of Sex Matters

Link:
Sex, gender and freedom of speech in the workplace - Building

When is a libertarian not a libertarian? When, apparently, it is the wrong kind of people whose liberties are being curtailed. The past week has seen so-called libertarian Tory MPs rebel against the governments Covid plan B the necessity for vaccine certificates or negative tests to attend large venues, mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff, and the compulsory wearing of masks in certain spaces. Were not a papers please society, Tory MP Marcus Fysh claimed. This is not Nazi Germany.

Forget the gratuitous Nazi analogy, for which Fysh apologised; such a stance is now endemic in much discussion of Covid restrictions. The fact is, for many people, Britain is very much a papers please society. Papers please is what the hostile environment for immigrants is built on the demand that people who might be immigrants must show their papers before they can receive hospital treatment, rent a flat or find a job. Its what lies at the heart of the Windrush scandal the insistence that those who did not have the right papers could not be British, even if they had been born here, and had lived and worked here all their lives.

The failure to recognise this is not an unfortunate oversight. Rightwing libertarians often have a selective view of who should be able to avail themselves of liberty. In the run-up to the debate over Covid restrictions, two other laws deserving of their attention passed through parliament. The libertarians response to both revealed their authoritarian core.

The governments police, crime, sentencing and courts bill is currently in its committee stage in the Lords, having travelled through the Commons. At its heart is an assault on the ability of people to protest. The law would allow police to prevent demonstrations they deem too noisy or causing serious disruption. What serious disruption means is left to the home secretary to define.

An array of amendments the government has quietly added to the bill include measures to proscribe protesters from attaching themselves to another person or to an object, and the use of serious disruption prevention orders to ban individuals from protesting. These can be imposed on anyone who has previously been convicted of a protest-related offence, or who simply has been to two protests in which they carried out activities that could have caused serious disruption. Breaking such bans could lead to 51 weeks imprisonment. Police are also to be given new powers to stop and search people without suspicion.

It is one of the most ferociously illiberal laws of recent times. So, how many of our libertarian Tories voted against the bill at its third reading in July? Not one. Fysh objects to a papers please society but is happy to assent to a you cannot protest unless the home secretary allows you to state.

And then there is the nationality and borders bill, which had its third reading in the Commons earlier this month. The bill proposes differential treatment of refugees depending on how they arrived here. Those who come through regular means with papers or permission to enter the UK will be eligible to claim asylum. But any asylum seeker who knowingly arrives without leave to enter could be jailed for up to four years. This is to criminalise the very act of seeking asylum. It is also to enlarge the papers please approach of the hostile environment. Not just asylum seekers, but anyone helping them will also be criminalised even if providing humanitarian assistance and could face life imprisonment.

One of the many amendments the government has added to the bill gives the home secretary unprecedented powers to deprive an individual of citizenship without even informing them. Tory MP and former Brexit minister David Davis described the bill as deeply flawed and suggested that plans to establish offshore asylum detention centres could create a British Guantnamo Bay.

Presumably, then, Davis voted against the bill? No. He supported it. As did 290 other Tory MPs. A further 66 abstained or did not vote. Again, not a single Tory opposed the bill.

Tory libertarians are not libertarian in any meaningful sense. They accept, indeed welcome, the most grotesque denial by the state of individual liberty so long as it is directed against people they deem unworthy of such freedoms, whether protesters or immigrants.

Some commentators, such as the Spectator editor and Daily Telegraph columnist Fraser Nelson, have bemoaned the rise of illiberal conservatism. Such illiberalism is, however, neither new nor strange. Belief in small government and free markets has long coexisted with an insistence on the strict policing of those deemed undesirable.

Nelson cites the 19th-century liberal Walter Bagehot as an exemplar of the kind of liberal conservatism he would like to re-establish. In 1852, writing from Paris, Bagehot welcomed Louis Napoleons bloody coup detat the previous year to suppress the 1848 revolution. The first duty of society, Bagehot insisted, is the preservation of society: to keep up this system we must sacrifice everything. Parliaments, liberty, leading articles, essays, eloquence all are good, but they are secondary. He warned against being misled by any high-flown speculations about liberty or equality and to recognise the need to protect society from the dangerous classes. Its a sentiment as alive today as it was then.

Liberty has always been a contested issue, both in its meaning and in its scope. Those in power have constantly attempted to exclude certain groups from benefiting from the largesse of liberty. How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? asked Samuel Johnson (no friend of liberty himself) of the American revolutionaries of 1776.

It was historically the left that waved the banner of liberty, seeking to expand its meaning and to include debarred groups, from the working class to women to colonial subjects. These struggles gave shape to the modern meaning of liberty. More recently, though, many sections of the left have retreated from issues that once helped define it, from free speech to civil liberties. This has given a free pass to the libertarian right both to don the mantle of freedom and to distort its meaning; libertarians who are happy to deny basic freedoms to those who need it most. Liberty is too important to leave to those who dont really believe in it.

Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Follow this link:
Strange beasts, these libertarians who love to curb the freedom of others - The Guardian

Rejected license plates offer a humorous glimpse into automotive culture and today we celebrate the genius who came up with P00BARU.

The ideal vanity plate for aging brown Subarus, P00BARU deserves a spot in Merriam-Websters dictionary. Unfortunately, the Debbie Downers at the Idaho Transportation Department thought otherwise. As a result, they rejected it as well as a host of other crude license plates.

As Boises KTVB pointed out, the state prohibits plates from having a sexual term that is vulgar, obscene, or in poor taste as well as terms that could be considered obscenity, contempt, prejudice, hostility, insult, racial degradation, ethnic degradation, profanity, or vulgarity.

Also Read:California Judge Says Ban On Offensive Vanity Plates Violates Free Speech

What falls into these categories is open to interpretation, but the station received a list of over 250 vanity plates that were rejected this year. While many of them involved abbreviated swear words, there were some puzzling rejections including FAKEAWD, which seemingly means Fake All-Wheel Drive.

The relatively tame PB4WEG0 was also rejected as was STAYNCA, which targets newcomers to the state by telling them to Stay in California. Sticking with that theme, CASUKS was also rejected.

Since 63.8 percent of Idaho voterscast their ballot for President Trump in the last election, it comes as little surprise many of the plates targeted the new administration. FKBDEN, FBIDEN, and FKBIDEN were all rejected as was FKHARIS, which is a (insulting) nod to Vice President Kamala Harris. Of course, not everyone is a Trump fan and at least one person attempted to get a FCKTRMP plate.

There was also an application for IEATASS, which is interesting given the drama that phrase stirred up in Florida a few years ago. That case involved a decal and a mans arrest, which has now turned into a lengthy legal battle over free speech.

Of course, those are just a handful of the rejected plates and you can see the full list here.Needless to say, the list includes a number that are definitely NSFW.

See original here:
Idaho Rejected Over 250 Vanity Plates This Year, Including P00BARU - CarScoops

Academics seeking promotion at one of the countrys leading universities have been told they should overhaul courses to limit the number of dead white men.

Researchers applying for any teaching roles at University College London (UCL) should engage with the institutions Liberating the Curriculum initiative and be prepared to "demonstrate the impact" of this.

According to an internal university guidance document, titled UCL Academic Careers Framework, this is listed as a core requirement for those applying for lecturer roles.

It says that all academic, research and teaching staff are expected to demonstrate at least some core activities when applying for a promotion.

The document explains that an "indicator of impact" could be either introducing new or making substantial revisions to old modules in response to student feedback.

UCL describes its Liberating the Curriculum initiative as a policy aimed at challenging traditional Eurocentric, male-dominated curricula and ensuring the work of marginalised scholars on race, sexuality, gender and disability are fairly represented in curricula.

The initiative also encourages academics to be the change and acknowledge the prejudices baked into a field as well as check their privilege.

It claims that many academic disciplines are deeply exclusive and unfair in their current form as they are overly represented by dead white (able-bodied European) men.

One academic told The Telegraph they are deeply troubled about this initiative. I think this whole woke avalanche is really concerning because it is like a religious fervour," he said. "Instead of looking at the evidence, it says some answers have got to be accepted and others cannot be accepted. That is poisonous - it is the wrong direction for a university to go in.

The Free Speech Union (FSU) has written to UCLs vice-chancellor, Dr Michael Spence, urging him to remove this stipulation immediately from its guidance.

Toby Young, general secretary of the FSU, said: "Insisting that anyone in a grade 8 job at UCL, or applying for one, has to remove 'dead white able-bodied European men' from reading lists, 'check their privilege' and 'acknowledge the prejudice baked into their field' is an infringement of their right to free speech and almost certainly unlawful.

The Telegraph last week revealed how Oxford dons are furious that a candidates woke score could be part of the criteria for hiring academics, under new proposals aimed at boosting staff diversity.

The universitys race equality task force has published a series of recommendations aimed at increasing the number of people it hires from ethnic minority backgrounds.

In a consultation document, the task force said it was important to embed EDI - which stands for equality, diversity and inclusion - into all recruitment.

One Oxford academic questioned whether this would mean academics need to have a minimum woke score to get a job at the university.

A UCL spokesperson said that their Academic Careers Framework document gives illustrative examples of activity undertaken by some people at a specific job grade and these are categorically not a checklist for promotion".

They added: The descriptions are not exhaustive and no individual would be expected to meet all of the criteria highlighted. They offer broad and varied indicators of different types of activity and Liberating the Curriculum is just one example of how staff can demonstrate their work on the curriculum.

Irrespective of the activity, the evidenced impact and reach of a persons work is the vital aspect for promotion and contribution will be considered in the round.

We have a long tradition of safeguarding freedom of speech and are strongly committed to upholding academic freedom of enquiry in our teaching and research."

Read this article:
Academics seeking promotion at UCL told to overhaul courses to limit the number of 'dead white men' - Telegraph.co.uk

AL.coms Education Lab team is supported by individual donors and grants. Learn more about the team, sign up for its newsletter, Ed Chat, and donate today.

Faculty at Alabamas flagship university are urging leaders to take a public stand against state legislation aimed at limiting academic speech.

In a resolution published Thursday, the University of Alabama Faculty Senate urged UA President Stuart Bell and the Board of Trustees to join in opposition of proposed and future legislation that undermines academic freedom and, therefore, the historic purpose of higher education.

Read more Ed Lab: After CRT complaint, Huntsville teacher training investigated.

The Faculty Senate is a legislative body at the University of Alabama that consists of faculty representatives across colleges. The resolution comes after an impassioned meeting earlier this fall, when members debated how to handle legislative efforts that could impact discussions of race, equity and critical race theory.

Critical race theory is not taught at the K-12 level in Alabama, but several professors in an October meeting said they must debate and research the concept in university courses. A University of Alabama School of Law professor is an expert in the field.

Read more Ed Lab: What is critical race theory? Is it in schools? We asked an expert.

This is an existential threat to everyone in the room, said John Petrovic, an education professor, of bills prefiled in the Alabama legislature. To wait until legislation passes to make a statement, he said earlier this fall, would be cowardice bullshit.

This fundamentally attacks what we are supposed to be about; not only are we supposed to be providing leadership on issues of social justice, and at least some of us are in the work of anti-racism, but this is now attacking all of us in terms of academic freedom, he said in the October meeting.

The resolution, which was voted on Wednesday in the Senates second in-person meeting since the pandemic began, follows a similar motion from the Board of Trustees, which recognized its commitment to free speech and expression and stated that it is not the proper role of an institution to shield or attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive.

A bill prefiled for the 2022 legislative session would prohibit public K-12 schools and public institutions of higher education and their employees from using or introducing courses of instruction or units of study directing or compelling students to adhere to or affirm certain concepts regarding race or sex, such as critical race theory. It threatens firing of teachers and professors who teach those concepts.

The Faculty Senate asked university administration to continue to affirm free speech even in the event that a bill is passed.

It also cited a prior resolution from 2004, which stated that the purpose of academic freedom is to allow college and university professors to develop knowledge and to challenge existing truths by speaking and writing about their findings.

Our students opportunity to maximize their intellectual potential depends in large part on the ability of faculty to employ academic freedom and freedom of expression in their pedagogy, the group wrote. ... Any pending legislation in the Alabama legislature that infringes on academic freedom and expression is anathema to this ideal and contradicts existing law and precedents.

Read the rest here:
University of Alabama faculty defend free speech, right to teach critical race theory - AL.com