That’s Debatable!

That's Debatable!' is the weekly podcast of the Free Speech Union. Hosts Tom Harris and Jan MacVarish – both staffers at the FSU – talk about the free speech controversies that have erupted in the past week. Please like, subscribe and share. In this week's episode, Jan Macvarish and Connie Shaw discuss the FSU's campaign against the ‘banter ban'. Connie describes legislative reforms that are being proposed as part of the government's Employment Rights Bill and the problems the FSU has identified with them for free speech. FSU General Secretary addressed the audience at last week's Comedy Unleashed gig and interviewed comedians including Andrew Doyle, Josh Howie and Francis Foster, about the prospect of ‘banter bouncers' in venues, clubs and pubs. You can find out more and watch the video here. Toby also appeared on Sunday's Free Speech Nation (around 1 hour 35 minutes in) to discuss the bill with Andrew Doyle. Connie encourages viewers and listeners to use our special online tool to alert members of the House of Lords to the dangers of the Bill and to encourage them to support Lord Young's amendments. It's not just the FSU that has identified problems - the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has also warned of the ‘risk of unintended consequences' and counselled the need to ‘balance…rights to freedom from harassment and freedom of expression'. You can read their briefing  here. Connie then introduces a news story she spotted about a US school-teacher who has been threatened with the sack for reading an unedited passage of To Kill A Mockingbird to pupils. She and Jan discuss how children need to be able to understand the context in which words gain their power and the role of teachers in guiding them through linguistic taboos that have changed over time. They then go on to talk about Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, written in 1953, which imagines a future America where books are banned and destroyed by fire. The novel explores the impact on memory, imagination and the ability to think and experience emotion that this has. And finally, they return to the ‘banter' question with an article reporting that a university researcher went undercover at his own golf club to analyse how jokes, innuendo and laddish banter forged a bonded but potentially exclusionary culture amongst golfers. The story raises questions about freedom of association, the role of humour in human relationships and research ethics. Edited by Jason Clift

That's Debatable!' is the weekly podcast of the Free Speech Union. Hosts Tom Harris and Jan MacVarish – both staffers at the FSU – talk about the free speech controversies that have erupted in the past week. Please like, subscribe and share. In this week's episode, Jan Macvarish and Connie Shaw discuss the FSU's campaign against the ‘banter ban'. Connie describes legislative reforms that are being proposed as part of the government's Employment Rights Bill and the problems the FSU has identified with them for free speech. FSU General Secretary addressed the audience at last week's Comedy Unleashed gig and interviewed comedians including Andrew Doyle, Josh Howie and Francis Foster, about the prospect of ‘banter bouncers' in venues, clubs and pubs. You can find out more and watch the video here. Toby also appeared on Sunday's Free Speech Nation (around 1 hour 35 minutes in) to discuss the bill with Andrew Doyle. Connie encourages viewers and listeners to use our special online tool to alert members of the House of Lords to the dangers of the Bill and to encourage them to support Lord Young's amendments. It's not just the FSU that has identified problems - the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has also warned of the ‘risk of unintended consequences' and counselled the need to ‘balance…rights to freedom from harassment and freedom of expression'. You can read their briefing  here. Connie then introduces a news story she spotted about a US school-teacher who has been threatened with the sack for reading an unedited passage of To Kill A Mockingbird to pupils. She and Jan discuss how children need to be able to understand the context in which words gain their power and the role of teachers in guiding them through linguistic taboos that have changed over time. They then go on to talk about Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, written in 1953, which imagines a future America where books are banned and destroyed by fire. The novel explores the impact on memory, imagination and the ability to think and experience emotion that this has. And finally, they return to the ‘banter' question with an article reporting that a university researcher went undercover at his own golf club to analyse how jokes, innuendo and laddish banter forged a bonded but potentially exclusionary culture amongst golfers. The story raises questions about freedom of association, the role of humour in human relationships and research ethics. Edited by Jason Clift

That's Debatable!' is the weekly podcast of the Free Speech Union. Hosts Tom Harris and Jan MacVarish – both staffers at the FSU – talk about the free speech controversies that have erupted in the past week. Please like, subscribe and share. This week, the Free Speech Union's Education and Events Director Jan Macvarish takes the steering wheel as Tom Harris is away. She is joined by the Free Speech Union's Case Management Officer Lynsey Metcalfe to discuss some research Lynsey is conducting into the free speech issues that arise in schools. It will be published in the coming months on the FSU website. Lynsey and Jan also refer to last week's book launch for Andrew Doyle's The End of Woke, the video of which has already been watched thousands of times and can be viewed here. A video from the FSU/Women's Rights Network event held last weekend in Manchester with Akua Reindorf KC that is also mentioned will be posted on our You Tube channel by the end of the week. That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

With the FSU's backing, Lucy Connolly, jailed for a tweet about migrants that she posted following the Southport murders, has been fighting her 31-month sentence in the Court of Appeal. Although a verdict was expected on Thursday when the hearing concluded, the Court will now be providing a written judgement, somewhat vaguely scheduled for “as soon as possible”. Allison Pearson has written a powerful piece about the ongoing saga in the Telegraph. A member of the FSU's legal advisory council, Andrew Tettenborn, has written in Spiked about the European Commission's threat to bring legal proceedings against Ireland for allegedly failing to comply with a 2008 framework decision that seeks to criminalise Holocaust denial or trivialisation of the Holocaust or other crimes against humanity. As Andrew points out, Ireland has had hate speech laws of its own since 1989 and even imposed a law last year that increases the length of prison sentences for certain crimes that are proved to be motivated by hate. We end today's episode with a discussion around Helen Joyce's recent appearance on BBC Woman's Hour. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Julian Foulkes, a retired Special Constable, was arrested and held in a cell for eight hours over a tweet warning about the threat to British Jews posed by the pro-Palestinian marches. In October of 2023, he responded to another tweet criticising Suella Braverman for describing the pro-Palestinian protests that were sweeping the country in the aftermath of the massacre in Southern Israel as ‘hate marches'. As reported in the Telegraph, the day after someone complained about Julian's tweet, six police officers turned up at his home, ransacked the premises, arrested him, detained him for eight hours and gave him a caution. Julian retained the services of a solicitor and, with his help, got Kent Police to admit they'd made a mistake and delete the caution from his record. Julian, who has now joined the Free Speech Union, is now going to sue the force for wrongful arrest, as well as unlawful interference in his right to liberty. You can contribute to Julian's crowdfunder here. We move on to discuss two ways in which the FSU has stepped in to help with free expression events: the Lewes Speakers Festival on Friday 9th May and the re-platforming of the ‘Licence to Offend' cartoon exhibition. There is good news to report in the world of football where Cerys Vaughan has spoken out about her Kafkaesque trial after asking a transgender opponent: “Are you a man?”. Following a three-month battle, an appeal board of the FA quashed the ruling against her in a damning – and alarming – judgment on the original proceedings. As reported in the Telegraph, the written reasons state: she had not received a fair hearing during a three-hour video call that left her in tears; proper consideration had not been given to her age or the evidence against her; and she was wrongly found guilty “by own admission” when she had denied the charges. We end with an update on our event with Andrew Doyle on the 29th May, which is now both in-person and online. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

According to College of Policing guidance, Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) help forces build an intelligence picture of community tensions and understand where they need to allocate resources for prevention. Indeed, during a House of Lords debate in November 2024, Lord Hanson, the Home Office minister, told peers: “It is vital that the police monitor non-crime hate incidents when proportionate and necessary to do so to help prevent serious crimes”. However, the Telegraph reports that freedom of information requests submitted to police by Harry Miller, the founder of Fair Cop, revealed that many of the biggest forces, including the Met, Greater Manchester and West Midlands do not actually analyse the NCHI data they collect. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to abolish non-crime hate incidents. FSU members can use our Campaigns tool to write to their MPs to urge them to vote for this amendment. In our next item, we discuss the barring of Renaud Camus, a French philosopher, from entering the UK due to his controversial views on immigration. Lord Young is quoted in the Telegraph, “We've reached out to him to see if he'd like any help in appealing this decision, and he said yes. So I anticipate that we are going to be getting an immigration lawyer on the case”. He adds, “I don't think that the common good is endangered by inviting people to set out their contentious views in the public square, particularly not someone as distinguished as Mr Camus”. We end with a brief discussion on a new FSU briefing paper written by Trevor Kavanagh and entitled, “Journalism in the Dock, Sir Keir Starmer's Baseless Prosecution of Tabloid Journalists as Director of Public Prosecutions”. The video of Monday's FSU event, “Lifeblood of Democracy”, where we discussed the issues raised within the paper and Operation Elveden, will soon be available on our website. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We have just completed our quarterly analysis of FSU casework and dive into the results of that during today's episode. The first quarter of 2025 was our busiest ever with 411 new incidents received in the FSU inbox. This growth in caseload is directly related to the continuing increase in FSU active membership, which is now running at over 4,000 new members per quarter. ‘State Intervention', which ranges from police contact and Non-Crime Hate Incidents through to arrest and prosecution, is a growing proportion of our work, representing 23% of new cases for the year to date, up from just 10% as recently as 2023. The good news is that, for cases that we see through from beginning to end, our member achieves a favourable outcome 80% of the time. We end the episode with a discussion on our third Belfast speakeasy that was held on Friday 11th April – the video should be up later in the week. We wish all our listeners and viewers a very Happy Easter! ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Both The Times and Sky News have reported on a landmark ruling from the Office for Students (OfS), which has fined the University of Sussex a record £585,000 for “serious and significant” free speech failings in the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, accused of ‘transphobia' for her gender-critical views. Professor Stock was forced out of the university in 2021 after a three-year campaign of bullying and character assassination. The OfS's report denounces Sussex's “trans and non-binary equality” statement for undermining academic freedom and creating a “chilling effect”. The report goes on: “An example of this effect in practice is the experience of Professor Stock. There were some views she did not feel able to express, and therefore teach, despite those views being lawful. Other staff and students may have felt similarly unable to express these, or other, lawful views.” Sussex's Vice-Chancellor Sasha Roseneil reacted furiously, accusing the OfS of “free speech absolutism”. In our next item, reported in The Telegraph, we discuss an inclusivity guide issued to employees of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) says that the “myth of meritocracy” asserts “race does not play a role in life successes” – and that the “belief that performance alone will be enough to earn recognition [and] promotion” can be a “microaggression”. In fact, even just saying “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” can count as “racial harassment”. We end with the news that Rangers FC is threatening lifetime bans after a group of fans displayed a banner reading “KEEP WOKE FOREIGN IDEOLOGIES OUT DEFEND EUROPE” during a recent Europa League tie at Ibrox. UEFA swiftly fined Rangers £25,000, describing the banner as “racist and/or discriminatory”. The story is discussed in Spiked by our digital communications director, Freddie Attenborough. If you're a Rangers fan under investigation – or know someone who is – contact the FSU at help@freespeechunion.org. We end the episode with a round-up of forthcoming FSU events. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

With the FSU's support, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation – Rick Prior – is suing his own union after he was ‘cancelled' for suggesting frontline officers are increasingly nervous about challenging people from ethnic minorities whom they suspect of breaking the law, given the spate of internal investigations into officers accused of being ‘racist'. Following an interview on GB News in October 2024 which led to his suspension, Mr Prior was also locked out of his emails and IT system and told he wasn't allowed to speak to the press or comment on social media. As reported in The Telegraph and with the backing of the FSU, Mr Prior is taking legal action against the Police Federation of England & Wales and you can support Rick here. In other news, on Monday 17th March, the Online Safety Act's latest phase of duties came into force. They require social media platforms – on pain of massive fines – to identify and remove illegal content. Sites must complete risk assessments detailing how they deal with illegal material and implement safety measures to deal with the risk. The Telegraph reports that dozens of small internet forums have already blocked British users or shut down as new online safety laws come into effect, with one comparing the new regime to a British version of China's “great firewall”. Interestingly, the importance of internet forums and online anonymity was raised at our ‘From Faith to Faithless' event last week. When labouring under the pervasive influence of a ‘high control' religion, anonymous online communication becomes an essential ingredient for those taking their first tentative steps back to the wider world.   ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

In a major win for workplace free speech, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) have abandoned plans to impose new diversity and inclusion rules on financial firms after strong pushback, including from the FSU. Had the proposals gone ahead, they would have placed sweeping new obligations on a significant portion of the UK's financial sector. In January 2024, we responded to two parallel consultations (here and here), warning that the proposals would create a climate where employees felt unable to challenge radical progressive orthodoxies on a cluster of issues without fear of professional consequences. Our response to the FCA consultation was submitted via its online portal, but you can read our letter to the PRA here. We move on to discuss the case of Ben Woods, a member of the Free Speech Union (FSU), who has worked at Waitrose's Henley branch in Oxfordshire for 25 years, having joined the supermarket as a teenager. However, after accusing its long-serving employee of misconduct over a dossier of more than 30 social media posts, the company has now swiftly suspended him. The case was reported in both The Telegraph and The Mail and you can support Ben's s fundraiser page here. Thames Valley Police have admitted acting unlawfully in arresting an adult-education teacher at a local proclamation of the accession of King Charles in September 2022. Symon Hill, 47, was going home from church in Oxford on the Sunday morning three days after the death of Queen Elizabeth II when he found his way blocked by the ceremony. Following the public declaration of Charles as king, he called out from the back of the crowd: “Who elected him?” He then pursued legal action for wrongful arrest and has finally won his case, together with £2,500 in compensation. Now a trainee Baptist minister, Mr Hill (somewhat understatedly) said that he'd been “surprised” by the entire affair and by the two-and-a-half years it had taken the police to admit their mistake. We end the episode with a discussion on a report in The Telegraph that Donald Trump issued a sweeping executive order last Friday gutting the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – Voice of America's parent agency – and several other government departments.  ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

A man arrested for burning a copy of the Koran in Bradford will not face charges, following intervention by the Free Speech Union. The man arrived in Britain as an asylum-seeker and, ironically, he was fleeing religious persecution in a Muslim majority country. After he uploaded a video of himself burning a Koran in a symbolic stand for freedom of speech and against Islamic extremism, West Yorkshire Police reacted swiftly – not to protect his right to protest, but to arrest him on suspicion of committing a criminal offence. The FSU intervened immediately, instructing a solicitor and covering our member's legal fees. After several months, the police have now told him they'll be taking no further action. Freddie Attenborough, our Digital Communications Director, has written about the case at length for The Conservative Woman. We are encouraging our supporters to write to their MP to encourage them to support an amendment tabled by The Opposition to scrap Clause 18 of the Employment Rights Bill. Clause 18 is a dangerous escalation in speech policing, disguised as a way to ‘protect' vulnerable workers. It will force British businesses to monitor customer conversations or risk being sued for ‘third-party harassment'. Next, two recent stories from Cardiff University could serve as a parable for all that's going wrong in British higher education. Either that, or a “Go Broke, Go Woke” parody. In story one, the university has announced plans to cut 400 academic jobs. In story two, there's now a mandatory EDI module for all first-year Cardiff students. In other words, at the same time as the university is trying to get rid of academics who could teach students to think critically about received wisdoms, it's somehow found the money to help EDI zealots impose them as dogma. The module provides a comprehensive guide to EDI-speak. Out, for example, go such “microaggressions” as complimenting somebody on their English. Also out are any idioms with an offensive ‘origin story'. We end the episode with a round-up of forthcoming FSU events. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

In a remarkably frank speech at the Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance warned that the greatest threat to Western democracies is not external aggression, but the erosion of free speech within them. Britain, he argued, was leading the charge in policing thought, with other European nations close behind. Invoking the Cold War, Mr Vance said that the West once defined itself in opposition to regimes that criminalised dissent and censored ‘heretical' views – but now its governments are adopting such tactics themselves. Freddie Attenborough has written about the speech in detail here. As if on cue, The Telegraph reported on Saturday that the closure of two French TV stations had been confirmed by the Council of State, the Republic's highest administrative court. The FSU was proud to have a presence at the Association for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference 2025, alongside many other civil rights and free expression advocacy groups. A key moment at the conference was the Free Speech dinner where our General Secretary, Lord Young, delivered the opening speech. The conference also provided the perfect platform to announce the launch of FSU International – an initiative designed to coordinate the efforts of existing FSUs around the world, and to support those looking to set up new ones. To drive the initiative forward, we've appointed Jon Benjamin, a former British Ambassador, to lead FSU International. On Wednesday 19th February, in the heart of Westminster, the FSU marked its fifth anniversary with a packed gathering of supporters and donors. In just five years, the FSU has established itself as a leading voice for free expression, standing up for those targeted for wrongthink in an increasingly censorious culture while ensuring that the right to speak one's mind is defended in the workplace and the public square. We end with a round-up of forthcoming FSU events. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

With the help of the FSU, a former Royal Marine who served in Iraq has been cleared of publishing threatening material with intent to stir up racial hatred – in reality, a 12-minute Facebook video urging people to stage peaceful protests about illegal immigration. Jamie Michael, an FSU member, was unanimously acquitted by a jury at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court in just 17 minutes. The story was reported this week in The Telegraph. We paid his legal fees and arranged for him to be represented by solicitor Luke Gittos and barrister Adam King. Prosecutors claimed his language was “unrelentingly negative” towards immigrants, but his defence made clear that it was directed only at those who are “illegal, unchecked or radicalised”. The jury reached its verdict in 17 minutes, less time than it took to hear the prosecution's opening arguments. FSU General Secretary Toby Young has written to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) on behalf of the FSU protesting its decision to release the name and street address of the man who was arrested on Monday for publicly burning the Koran. In the letter, Toby tells the Chief Constable: “As you must know, demonstrations involving damage to or the destruction of a Koran have been responded to with violence of the most serious kind. Just last week, an Iraqi man named Salwab Momika was murdered in Sweden after he burnt a Koran”. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner, in her role as communities secretary, is planning a new council on ‘Islamophobia' and lining up ex-Tory attorney-general Dominic Grieve to chair it, according to The Telegraph. The 16-strong body will draw up an official government definition of Islamophobia. In 2018 Mr Grieve wrote a foreword to the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims which set out the controversial definition of Islamophobia later adopted by the Labour Party when it was in opposition. This definition has been widely criticised – including in a Free Speech Union briefing – for being far too broad and labelling perfectly legitimate criticisms of Islam ‘Islamophobic'. We end with a report that NHS staff have been told not to call people “obese” in an inclusive language guide produced by the medicines watchdog, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The guide, reported in The Telegraph, instructs medical workers to describe the badly overweight as “people with obesity”. It also warns against using “diabetic”, and “alcoholic” rather than “people with diabetes” and “people who are dependent on alcohol”. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We briefly discuss last Saturday's Manchester event on free expression in football, before moving on to a recent victory for workplace free speech that was reported in The Telegraph. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) has scrapped controversial plans to force its 32,000 members — including 15,000 student members and 46 partner universities — to "encourage diversity, equity and inclusion" in all aspects of their professional and personal lives. The Free Speech Union responded to both of the IFoA's consultations on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and we take the opportunity to discuss the best strategies for tackling these kind of free speech codes in other contexts. Also reported last week in The Telegraph, claims of ‘two-tier' policing are, according to an internal Home Office report, an ‘extreme right-wing narrative'. We know about the Home Office report not because it was published, but because it was leaked to the think tank Policy Exchange, which rightly pointed out that some of the definitions of extremism threaten free speech, defining aspects of normal and legitimate political debate as extremist. We end with Jan's regular report on upcoming FSU events plus the good news of Toby Young's introduction to the House of Lords on Tuesday 28th January, alongside the FSU's Chairman, Lord Biggar. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We were delighted to welcome the distinguished composer, musician and educator Martin Speake onto‘That's Debatable!' this week. Back in February 2024, Martin questioned new ‘anti-racist' policies at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance (TL), his employer for 22 years. As reported in The Times earlier this month, the woke mob then came for him with full force. While TL publicly distanced itself from him, Martin faced widespread professional ostracisation. Students boycotted his classes, concerts were cancelled, collaborations were dissolved, bands refused to play his compositions and the release of his new album was shelved. Eventually, this Orwellian un-personing took its toll, costing him his job. Martin has now filed legal claims against TL for discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010, as well as for constructive dismissal. During our discussion, Martin walks us through what happened and explains the personal impact his cancellation has had and continues to have on him. Viewers and listeners can donate here to stand with Martin in his fight for justice; you can also hear Martin's music on his YouTube channel. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Bridget Phillipson has updated the House of Commons on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (HEFSA), which secured cross-party support in the last Parliament and received Royal Assent in May 2023. She will now implement some – but not all – of the remaining clauses. Clause 4, a cornerstone of the original law, will not be commenced, according to Phillipson. This would have introduced a statutory tort enabling students, university employees and visiting speakers to seek compensation in the courts if their free speech rights had been breached. The government has also removed provisions that would have included student unions in the Act's scope. Speaking to The Telegraph, Toby Young said: “It comes as no surprise that the government appears to have performed a U-turn in response to our claim. But the Free Speech Union hasn't received any communication from the Secretary of State, and the devil will be in the detail. In the meantime, we will be pressing on with our case.” During our discussion we refer to a very interesting post on X by Professor Jo Phoenix. There was further good news this week, reported in both The Telegraph and The Sunday Times. Eleanor Frances has secured a £116,749 settlement after bringing claims of victimisation, constructive dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief against the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). Ms Frances said she was forced out of the service because of a “politicised climate of fear” within Whitehall, exacerbated by internal policies influenced by Stonewall and adopted without proper consultation. The departments are now working together to introduce a revised gender reassignment policy, informed by a new central model policy. We end with a discussion around how the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) has abolished the terms ‘slaves' and ‘the slave trade' as part of the process of decolonising the curriculum in Scotland. The full story was reported this week in The Mail. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

On Tuesday 7th January, Jan joined many others in Trafalgar Square to stand in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and honour the victims from ten years ago. The commemoration took on an added poignancy when a group of French students, visiting the square by chance, spontaneously joined the gathering. Together, they reaffirmed the enduring importance of protecting free expression from those who would seek to destroy it. You can watch a clip of Jan's speech here. As you may have seen in the Telegraph, FSU member Saba Poursaeedi is fighting back after being penalised by his employer for his involvement in Reform UK. Saba was working for the Hightown Housing Association and had applied for – and been offered – a promotion to a more senior role. However, Hightown withdrew the job offer, despite his exemplary work record, when it discovered he was a regional organiser for Reform UK and hoped to stand as a candidate. His employer claimed Reform UK's policies on immigration, net zero, and green belt development were incompatible with Hightown's ‘values'. You can find out more about Saba's case and donate here. Toby also interviewed Saba about his ordeal, and you can watch that video here. The Mail reported this week that the boss of a speech and language therapy group has been forced to issue a grovelling apology following a five-month investigation – because he followed Tommy Robinson on X. Steve Jamieson did not ‘like' or repost any views of the far-right agitator but still faced calls to resign from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT). The RCSLT appointed a sub-committee which instructed a barrister to investigate the ‘incident', which likely cost tens of thousands of pounds. In what can only be described as a ‘Mea Culpa' statement, he wrote: ‘I am deeply sorry for the hurt, upset, distress, fear and anger that this caused members, colleagues and staff.' We end today's episode with an update on forthcoming FSU events. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Happy New Year to all our listeners and viewers! We were immensely proud to see both Toby Young and our Chair, Professor Nigel Biggar, in the New Year honours list – an achievement that's in no small part thanks to the sustained support of all the members and supporters of the FSU over our nearly five years of operation. Tuesday 7thJanuary is the tenth anniversary of the ‘Charlie Hebdo' massacre in Paris during which 12 people were murdered. France 24 reported on the anniversary last week, “Since its founding in 1970, [Charlie Hebdo] has regularly tested the boundaries of French hate-speech laws, which offer protection to minorities but allow for blasphemy and the mockery of religion”. The article continues, “‘The idea is not to publish anything, it's to publish everything that makes people doubt, brings them to reflect, to ask questions, to not end up closed in by ideology', director Riss, who survived the 2015 attack, told Le Monde in November”. Jan was on GB News discussing the anniversary on Sunday and in today's discussion we think about how depictions of the Prophet Muhammed are frequently dismissed as ‘unwise' – a recent example being the response of Labour Party advisor Mike Buckley to the Batley Grammar school incident of 2021. To mark the new year, Toby Young has written a piece in Spiked listing the multiple free speech threats from Sir Keir Starmer's government. His list includes the looming Employment Rights Bill, the Football Governance Bill and Yvette Cooper's stated aim to lower the threshold for the recording of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). FSU statistics to the end of 2024 are hot off the press and they show how the FSU has grown from 12,275 at year-end 2023 to 24,279 at year-end 2024 – an increase of 97.8%. Meanwhile, on the case work side of the house, we have assisted approximately 3,300 individuals since our creation, 640 (or nearly a fifth) of whom reached out to us during the second half of 2024. Finally, we are delighted to have the opportunity to host a farewell event for Graham Linehan before he heads to the USA to work with Andrew Doyle on a new sitcom. Tickets are on sale at our events page from Tuesday 7th January.   ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

The former Conservative and UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, writes in The Telegraph this week, “England is no longer a free society. The old country is descending into authoritarianism.” We begin by pondering whether this is true. As Jan points out, the very fact there is a fight on for free expression is a positive and we should eschew a paralysing fatalism. We move on to discuss The Spectator being reprimanded by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) for a piece by Gareth Roberts last May in which he wrote that Nicola Sturgeon “was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender”. Michael Gove, the new editor of The Spectator, has written powerfully in protest at IPSO's ruling in this week's edition of the magazine. Some important good news is that Bromley Council has adopted free speech protections for councillors in its constitution. The Council's Code of Conduct now states: “The right to free speech under the law is the basis of democracy and will be upheld at all times and there is no right to be offended by any lawful speech”. The FSU has been working for months with Bromley councillor Simon Fawthrop to draft these protections. There is further good news reported in The Times that the Chairman of the College of Policing, Lord Herbert of South Downs, has demanded a complete rethink on non-crime hate incidents (NCHI). As he says in the article, “We want to apply a commonsense approach, where the police officer would receive a complaint and they would be able to say, ‘We're sorry, we can understand you find that offensive but it's not a matter for us'”. We couldn't agree more! Finally, we report back on this week's annual online review which saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali declared our ‘free speech hero' for 2024 and Sir Keir Starmer our ‘free speech zero'. We wish all our listeners and viewers a very Happy Christmas and a 2025 full of free expression. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We start with some good news. As reported in The Telegraph, Cambridge Constabulary have announced that they will be taking no further action against the FSU member who used the word “pikey” on the phone to the police while reporting two men who were threatening her and her family. Meanwhile, “Rainbow Refuseniks” is the name given to a growing group of footballers who have either refused to wear rainbow-coloured jerseys and armbands to signify their support for the Football Association's Rainbow Laces campaign or have written religious messages on them. To date, they include Ipswich Town captain Sam Morsy, Crystal Palace captain Marc Guéhi and Manchester United defender Noussair Mazraoui. Our Executive Communications Officer, Freddie Attenborough, has written more broadly about the football world's war on free speech in The Critic. We move on to discuss the state of debate in the UK, following a debate at the Oxford Union, which is now being investigated by counter-terror police. The motion was: “This house believes Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide”. As Jan explains, the video of the debate is an unedifying spectacle but it is also revealing, especially in a context where certain speakers were claiming they ought not even be there to debate the issue. By contrast, FSU member Connie Shaw is heroically standing up for free speech, having been suspended from hosting a student radio show on Leeds Student Radio after she was accused of breaching her student union's code of conduct. This followed her expressing gender critical views and interviewing controversial figures for her podcast. The Telegraph reports how the FSU is helping Connie to appeal the student union's decision and has called for the investigation findings to be quashed. We stay within the FSU family to discuss the research of Ben Jones, our Director of Case Management. Ben spoke at the National Secular Society's members' day about the experiences of ex-muslims in the UK. As he said in his talk, his findings were shocking and “shouldn't happen in any country, let alone the UK”. Finally, FSU members have just a few hours left to sign-up for our Online Christmas Review on Tuesday 10th December (register using the link in the weekly newsletter). ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We were delighted to welcome Dr James Kierstead onto ‘That's Debatable!' to discuss his latest report, “Unpopular Opinions: Academic Freedom in New Zealand”. James is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative, where his work focuses on universities, free speech, and democracy. We begin with a recap of a story that hit the UK press back in 2021 about academics who were threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society of New Zealand for criticising plans that would see Māori knowledge added to the school curriculum. Controversy around race issues, especially those relating to the ‘Treaty of Waitangi' continue to exert a chilling effect on free expression – one testimony in the report notes that “Questioning anything about the radical current interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is likely to be career ending”. Another area explored in detail within the report is the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (‘CCP) on academic freedom, with recent incidents revealing how higher management in New Zealand's universities appear to be afraid to offend the Chinese Government. In a discussion on taboos  –  and the double standard around taboos  –  we briefly bring the focus back to the UK and the troubling call this week by Labour MP Tahir Ali for the introduction of blasphemy laws. In his conclusion, Dr Kierstead notes that if New Zealand can rediscover its historical defence of academic freedom, there is an opportunity for New Zealand's universities to steal a march on the larger and better-resourced university systems it tends to compete within the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Finally, a reminder to listeners and viewers of our Comedy Unleashed event on 17th December – tickets are selling fast! ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Jan was fortunate enough to join ‘Academics for Academic Freedom' (AFAF) at their annual conference on Saturday 23rd November and we begin by discussing how important that organisation has become in emboldening academics to fight for their freedom in the university context. The public row around Non Crime Hate Incidents (NCHI) has continued to rumble on, despite Essex police dropping its investigation into Allison Pearson. The Telegraph this week reported that Yvette Cooper is committed to reversing the Tories' decision to downgrade the monitoring of the incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so that they can be logged by police. The think tank ‘Policy Exchange' has now added its voice to the debate with the release of a new report entitled, “Non-Crime Hate Incidents: A chilling distraction from the public's priorities on policing”. We move on to discuss an item in The Guardian, which highlights how an anti-racism campaigner's London book events had to be cancelled amid the threat of far-right violence, a story that shows the need for free speech consistency. Next up, as reported in The Times, a consultation from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) which proposes bringing barristers' equality obligations into line with solicitors in England and Wales has triggered a row with the Bar Council. We recently hosted a panel of eminent legal experts to grapple with the merits of the Bar Standards Board's proposals, which you can watch here. We have also written a response to the consultation, which can be found here. We end with the news that a poster promoting Fern Brady's stand-up tour has been ruled as ‘offensive' to Christians by the Advertising Standards Authority. The debate resembles many of the arguments that were played out in 1979 following the release of ‘Life of Brian'. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Allison Pearson's visit from Essex Police on Remembrance Sunday has reignited the debate around the state of free expression in the UK. While some confusion remains around the precise details of that doorstep conversation, it has nevertheless thrown the thorny issue of ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents' (or NCHI) sharply back into the public eye. The Times, for example, has discovered that police have been recording NCHI against children as young as nine, this despite paragraph 36 of the new Code of Conduct explicitly recommending them not to do so. Our Informative Guide sets out how you can find out if your local police force has recorded an NCHI against you and what you can do to get it deleted – log in to your FSU account to take a look. Control of language continues across the country and we were dismayed to read in The Telegraph that the Welsh government's anti-racism action plan aims to change the beliefs and behaviour of the white majority. Official reports have even advised creating “dog free areas” to boost inclusion. We move on to discuss an important article by two Oxford students who each testify to the endemic fear of cancellation across the student campus. This follows the tragic death of Alexander Rogers and the inquest's ruling that the student was the victim of “pervasive cancel culture”. Professor Kathleen Stock has written a very thoughtful piece in Unherd on how universities are teaching students to shame. Finally, Jan discusses Wendy Houston's show, “Watch It!” and reports on Sunday's march on Wembley for the teenage female footballer banned following a transgender row. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

When it comes to American politics, it's probably fair to describe the events of the last seven days as ‘historic'. We begin, therefore, by asking the question, “What does the election of President Trump mean for free expression?” – and it turns out that things are perhaps more nuanced than either side would care to admit. While Trump's classically liberal instincts sometimes serve to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans, too often they are overridden by his determination to fight culture wars or by a fixation with settling personal vendettas. We begin today's episode by discussing these arguments, which Freddie Attenborough has also put together for an excellent article in The Critic. Back home in the UK, The Times reports how several of Britain's most eminent authors have told ministers that literary freedom is being “eroded” by their failure to stand up to cancel culture on university campuses. In their letter, they accuse the government of failing to safeguard “humane and liberal values”. Those signing the letter include the novelists Ian McEwan, Lady Antonia Fraser and Lionel Shriver. They have been joined by the philosopher AC Grayling, the actor and author Stephen Fry and the former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion. Finally, an article in Spiked caught our attention this week, which pointed out various ways in which Ofcom appears to be applying different standards to GB News than to mainstream media outlets. This is especially worrying at a time when the Online Safety Act has granted Ofcom new authority over not only traditional broadcasting, but also social-media companies and online streaming services. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

A striking chart that we've included in November's newsletter shows how the FSU has surged from just under 14,000 members at the beginning of July, to 20,100 members at the end of October – a percentage increase of 43%. As our graph highlights, it won't be long before we're bigger than Aslef and the National Union of Journalists. There's good news to pass on in relation to the Judicial Review of Bridget Phillipson's decision to pause the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. It was reported by the Telegraph over the weekend that the FSU has now been granted permission to appeal the move, with a judicial hearing set to take place in the High Court on January 23rd. In a legal document confirming permission to appeal the move, a High Court judge said it was in the “public interest” for the issue to be resolved promptly. Worryingly, though, Sir Keir Starmer has now resurrected the Football Governance Bill, which fell by the wayside during the last Parliament. Among the reams of red tape it will impose on football clubs is a requirement that they submit a “corporate governance statement” to the newly created Independent Football Regulator saying what action they're taking on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). Our concern is that this requirement will normalise what happened to our member, Linzi Smith, with tens of thousands of fans banned from attending games simply because their political views put them at odds with their club's EDI policy. Finally, we briefly discuss our response to the latest consultation issued by the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries on the inclusion of EDI requirements in the Actuaries Code before deciding definitively not to speculate on who might win the imminent presidential election in the USA. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

The Battle of Ideas 2024 delivered yet another weekend of thought-provoking talks, panel discussions and debate. It was especially heartening to witness so many attendees from the younger generation – so-called ‘Gen Z' – contributing to and shaping discussion that will equip us to defend enlightenment principles over the coming years and decades. How ironic it is then, that, according to a new language Guide reported on by The Telegraph, words used to discuss generational differences are to be classified as offensive across Northern Ireland's Civil Service. The guide also advises staff to use gender-neutral language and to avoid words such as “love”, “dear” or “darling”. In Wales, meanwhile, the next chapter in the Welsh government's tax-payer funded ‘Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' is a project to ‘decolonise' the childhood home of David Lloyd George. According to The Telegraph, the museum in Llanystumdwy honouring Britain's First World War leader has worked with a “decolonisation consultant” to change its approach to history, and LGBT displays could be included in future. While our new language commissars continue their mission of command and control across the UK, we shall continue to draw refreshment from the mountain-tops of Western culture – just one reason why we'll be listening back to the session, “Why JS Bach Still Matters” from the Battle of Ideas. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

It's been 100 days since Sir Keir Starmer formed his new government and it's fair to say that they have not been great for freedom in the UK. From the resurrection of Non-Crime Hate Incidents through to the establishment of a new unit commissioned with delivering a Bill to ban trans-inclusive conversion therapy, it's quite the shopping list of free expression issues. Sadly – though perhaps not surprisingly – the July halting of the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act is now having real life consequences. On 10th October, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman was due to speak about her career and life in politics to the Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA), which she led 20 years ago as a student. But the event was cancelled due to safety concerns after “Cambridge for Palestine”, a campaign group, called on supporters to “no platform” the “far Right”, claiming her “hyper-authoritarian populist policies on migration, policing and protest” represented “everything we stand against”. The FSU has since reached out to Ms Braverman and CUCA offering to pay the security costs to allow the talk to go ahead at a later date. An editorial piece in The Times  lays out that paper's own concerns for students and free thinking. Meanwhile, Nottingham university has slapped a trigger warning on Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, apparently because they contain ‘expressions of Christian faith'. Yet writing a collection of stories about characters on a pilgrimage from London to the tomb of Saint Thomas Becket without mentioning the Church, Jesus or the Bible would be quite the achievement! We end on an upbeat note with a mention of the upcoming Battle of Ideas. The event takes place in London this weekend, 19-20 October and tickets are available here, but FSU members can get a discounted price using the link provided in the Weekly News Round-Up. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

We are delighted to welcome Bernadette (‘Bernie') Spofforth onto ‘That's Debatable!' this week. The FSU offered to defend Bernie after she was arrested for a social media post on X on 29th July in the wake of the tragic Southport stabbings. She was held in custody for 36 hours on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred and false communications – this was in spite of the fact that she added the caveat “if this is true”, and deleted the relevant tweet when she discovered it wasn't. In August, Cheshire Police confirmed Ms Spofforth had been arrested “in relation to social media post containing inaccurate information” and that she had been bailed “pending further enquiries”. However, in a video first posted to X, Bernie said the force had now decided to take NFA, or ‘no further action'. Her message continued: “Firstly, thank you for all of your messages, and I'm so sorry I haven't responded or replied to any of you, but I couldn't. I would have been locked up in a cell again for breaching bail conditions if I had”. Today's conversation provides a first-hand account of the worrying state of free expression in the UK and you can find more background information on Bernie's ordeal here. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

A report published this week by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services confirms that police actions such as ‘taking the knee' or wearing rainbow lanyards are causing confusion amongst police officers and undermining public confidence. The review also suggested that police officers have been recording trivial matters such as non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) because of worries about getting into trouble. We briefly touch on an article by Labour MP Graham Stringer in The Sun that highlights how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has shocked MPs of all political stripes before moving on to the murky world of government statistics. The Times reported this week that 2021 census figures claiming there are 262,000 transgender people in England and Wales have had to be formally downgraded. The Office for National Statistics admitted that there was “potential for bias” in answers to the question: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”. Yet, as we discuss in the episode, reliable statistics are the essential building block for informing public debate, especially when the underlying issue is so culturally taboo that there are repeated attempts to shut down debate. Finally for this week, we dip into an excellent article by Greg Lukianoff in Quillette. He lays out twelve assertions that are frequently made against free expression before marshalling the counterarguments to demonstrate why each of them is flawed.  ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

A graph of FSU membership growth up to the end of August was shared on our social media channels this week and it is impossible to miss the moment at which the new government began its crackdown on free expression in Britain. As listeners and viewers will already know, one of this government's earliest anti-free expression decisions was to shelve the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. The Telegraph revealed this week that Professor Arif Ahmed, who was to be the first director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students, has been named as an interested party on the FSU's application for a Judicial Review of the Education Secretary's decision. This means that he will be able to make written submissions to the High Court and also appear in person with a barrister to challenge the Government on its arguments. The FSU's chief legal counsel, Dr Bryn Harris, is quoted in the article, “These proceedings are of the highest constitutional importance. For almost 350 years, the governance of this country has rested on a golden premise: ministers of the Crown may not set aside the law made by Parliament”. Underlining the urgent need for the (now paused) Higher Education Act to be activated, the Telegraph has also reported on the extent to which students on campus are scared to speak their mind for fear of being cancelled. Meanwhile, yet another ludicrous speech code was revealed this week in the Mail, this time at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, a UN agency. The latest target of the speech police is gendered language, meaning no more fishermen, Englishmen or, rather oddly, lumberjacks. Finally, two religious groups have independently raised concerns about the All Party Parliamentary Definition of Islamophobia that appears to be looming ever larger on the legislative road ahead. The Network of Sikh Organisations has written to the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this definition would negatively impact the ability of people to freely discuss religion, speak openly about historical truths, and cause an amplification of a government hierarchy for different faiths. Separately, Christian Today raises concerns that Christians who deny Islam is a saving faith could also fall foul of the law.   ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

The government has this week continued its extrajudicial onslaught on civil liberties. As reported in The Telegraph, the Home Secretary is now “committed to reversing the Tories' decision to downgrade the monitoring of non-crime hate incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so they can be logged by police”. But the underlying premise here isn't true. Ms Braverman's 2023 Code of Practice never prevented the recording of NCHIs. Rather, it just put the recording and retention of NCHIs on a lawful footing. Freddie Attenborough, the FSU's Communications Officer, provides all the background in his excellent article for The Critic. Meanwhile, documents revealed as part of the FSU's legal challenge to the pausing of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act note that “concerns” had been raised with the government about the “consequences for delivering English [higher education] in foreign countries which have restrictions on free speech”. Toby Young, our general secretary, is quoted, “It's becoming increasingly clear that the reason universities lobbied the Government to quash the Freedom of Speech Act is because they're worried it will jeopardise their cosy relationship with various authoritarian regimes, particularly the People's Republic of China. Bridget Phillipson should have told them to put principle before profit, not done their bidding”. Moving to the school sector, guidance has been created for teacher training courses, to ensure future educators are “anti-racist” and challenge “whiteness”. Given that this kind of attack on Britain's culture and history shows no sign of abating, we are particularly excited about an upcoming book launch hosted by the FSU to introduce Professor Frank Furedi's new book, “The War Against the Past: Why the West Must Fight for its History”. Join us on Thursday 12 September, either in person or online. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

As Fred de Fossard observes in an article for The Critic, the Prime Minister seems bent on waging a war against free speech. Indeed, the government has been cracking down so effectively, it has prompted Lord Frost to argue that we can no longer say that Britain is a free country. Unsurprisingly, against this backdrop the FSU has seen a surge in new members and donors (to whom we are very grateful). We often measure these moments with reference to the 2022 response to our cancellation by PayPal and, in terms of new sign-ups, the last three weeks have outpaced that period several times over. We take a moment, therefore, to outline what free speech protection the FSU can offer and the kind of information we need from members to provide effective assistance, though every individual case is different. The uneven-handed way the battle is being fought against free speech is a particularly troubling element, which leads us to discuss government hypocrisy, a topic ably covered by Michael Deacon in his Telegraph column. Along with so many other commentators, we are concerned that this double standard will be embedded more deeply across other areas of our national life, such as the latest Labour plan to treat “misogyny” as extremism. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Given the ongoing civil unrest across the UK, we are worried that the new government is about to clamp down harder and faster on our free expression than we might have first thought. Specifically, over the weekend there has been a railing against online anonymity, something that Ben Sixsmith covers in a piece for the Critic. A hastily rolled-out ban on anonymity could be a dragnet that stifles entirely lawful and benign speech and ensnares innocent people. Regular listeners and viewers will already be familiar with the Education Secretary's move to halt the commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. We said that we would be taking action and, as reported in the Telegraph, the FSU has now sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Education Secretary, threatening a judicial review if she doesn't reverse her decision. We have also this week been prompted to write to a local council to threaten Judicial Review of a PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order). The PSPO passed by Thanet District Council means people within the area covered can now be fined or even face a criminal conviction for “causing a disturbance to others” or being “pejorative” in public, among other things. It effectively imposes a strict liability speech offence, with none of the safeguards which Parliament and the courts have deemed necessary when restricting people's fundamental rights and liberties. We end today with news of a positive outcome for the sociologist Laura Favaro, who claimed that she had been denied access to her own research data after she wrote an article for Times Higher Education about how female scholars feared career damage if they criticised the idea that transgender women should be considered the same as people who are born female in all aspects of public life. We also briefly mention Almut Gadow's case, the background to which is laid out on her crowdjustice page. Now that the government has sabotaged the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, Almut's case has become even more important in our battle to recover academic free expression. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

Last week, the new Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson issued a written statement to the House of Commons saying she intended to ‘pause' the Freedom of Speech Act. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was the one tangible thing the Conservatives did to defend free speech in the past 14 years. Indeed, it was thanks to the lobbying efforts of the Free Speech Union that this legislation found itself on to the statute books. It would have imposed a new legal duty on English universities to uphold and promote freedom of speech on campus, and it created a couple of enforcement mechanisms, such as a new statutory tort, to make sure universities didn't ignore that duty. At the Free Speech Union, we've been taking advice on a range of legal options, and without wishing to tip our hand, it's safe to say Bridget Phillipson will be hearing from us shortly. The bottom line is we intend to fight this wanton act of vandalism with all we've got. If you're not already a member of the FSU, and would like to join the fight, do please join. Meanwhile, in the world of the judiciary, a new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The Telegraph reports that this new version advises Judges in England and Wales to avoid terms such as “asylum seekers”, “immigrant”, “gays” and “lame”, all of which are now deemed “politically incorrect”. Finally, Toby Young has written in this week's Spectator about the appointment of Becky Francis CBE to lead a review of the national curriculum. He writes, “As former director of the Institute of Education and current CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, [Becky Francis] has the outward appearance of a technocrat. But scratch the surface and, like so many Labour appointees, she emerges as a long-standing adherent of left-wing identity politics”. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

After a week that included the attempted assassination of former President Trump and the breaking news that President Biden will no longer be standing in November's US election, we discuss how political polarisation so rapidly fosters an environment in which cancel culture thrives. Of particular note is the manner in which many on the right are now calling for the cancellation of people making off colour remarks about the attempt on President Trump's life, a troubling phenomenon that Brendan O'Neill writes about this week in the Spectator. Closer to home, and in the wake of last year's debanking of Nigel Farage, we discuss the findings from a review by the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA') on whether parliamentarians, senior public servants and their families are treated fairly by financial institutions. As the Guardian reports, the FCA is telling financial firms to ensure their definition of a PEP (politically exposed person), family member, or close associate is “tightened to the minimum required by law” and not to go beyond that. In light of the FCA's advice, the FSU will be writing to Tulip Siddiq, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and City Minister, to remind her that the amendments to the Payment Services Regulations that we campaigned for enjoyed cross-party support and the present Government should now get on and make them. The fight against politicised Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (‘EDI') training in the workplace looks set to continue as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, launches a four-year scheme to ‘embed an inclusive culture' and reduce ‘microaggressions' at Transport for London (TfL) – something that is expected to ratchet up a bill close to £2.5m. As the Telegraph highlights, unconscious bias training was scrapped at central government level four years ago after an official review found the courses did not change behaviour or improve workplace equality. Like the Lernaean Hydra, it seems that no sooner do we chop one head off the EDI monster than two more grow back. ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

On Tuesday 9 July, the Free Speech Union was honoured to bring together an expert panel that included whistleblowers Sue Evans and Dr David Bell from the Tavistock Clinic, who risked their careers and much more to pursue the truth. As anticipated, the evening was a unique opportunity for us to learn the core free expression lesson from the Cass Report and the Tavistock scandal: that open inquiry and freedom of speech are essential to protecting us from pernicious ideas. Both Tom and Ben were fortunate enough to attend in person and much of today's episode is spent pondering the thoughts and threads that resonated with them most strongly. We also discuss a London council's attempt to label a Bloomsbury monument of Virginia Woolf with a digital tag that highlights her alleged ‘imperialist attitudes'. The story was reported in the Mail and it is heartening to witness Emma Woolf robustly defending her great aunt on Twitter/X: ‘You couldn't make it up. The wokerati of Camden Council have decided that this statue of my great-aunt Virginia Woolf in Bloomsbury needs a QR code to explain her 'offensive' attitudes. Just to be clear, this was a woman born in 1882. Are they expecting her to trot out the Wokery of 2024? Virginia was a feminist, socially progressive, a literary pioneer, politically active (Fabian Society etc), she was way ahead of her time in so many ways' .  ‘That's Debatable!'  is edited by Jason Clift.

While the FSU persists in its mission to remain politically non-partisan, we are worried that the new government could bring in laws that criminalise vast swathes of speech. Freddie Attenborough highlights these concerns in an article for our website and we begin today with a discussion around the five primary free expression issues that he identifies: the APPG definition of Islamophobia, Labour's proposed Race Equality Act, a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, a possible Hate Crime & Public Order Act (England & Wales), and greater restriction on the freedom of the press. In the coming years, we suspect we will need to fight a number of test cases in which we challenge whether the new laws are compatible with our existing legislation, including the Human Rights Act. The reality of the UK's free speech problem is underlined by our quarterly analysis of FSU casework stats, which is hot off the press. Since our inception in February 2020, we have handled nearly 2,700 cases and, when we know the outcome, we achieve a favourable outcome for our members over 75% of the time. Shockingly, nearly one quarter of the workplace cases that we see lead to initial dismissal or the loss of a working contract (though FSU involvement may ultimately lead to some form of vindication for our member). This highlights how rapidly situations escalate in these fraught times. We end with the good news that, with our help, an FSU member has successfully fought back after being banned from a pub for gender critical views. It is especially chilling to note that this happened to a prospective parliamentary candidate during the UK's general election campaign, a time when a robust exchange of differing political opinions is surely an essential part of the democratic process.    ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

In January 2024, Amelia Sparrow (not her real name) was dismissed by a Liberal Democrat MP after only three full days in her role of Parliamentary Researcher. She believes this happened because of pressure from the Liberal Democrat Party after she gave voice to her belief that sex is real, immutable and important. Amelia has submitted a claim to the employment tribunal arguing that she was discriminated against and harassed by the Liberal Democrat MP, as well as the Liberal Democrat party and you can support her crowdfunder here. We stick on the theme of courage amongst our young people with the story of a 12-year-old schoolboy who has been investigated by counter-extremism officers after he declared there 'are only two genders'. The incident was reported in the Mail and is yet another case that reveals the extent of ideological capture within the UK's education and law enforcement sectors. This particular 12-year-old appears more savvy about dubious ideas such as so-called ‘queer theory' than many of the establishment higher-ups. We end with a discussion on the statement last week from UN Secretary General on the occasion of the “International Day for Countering Hate Speech”. According to António Guterres, “States have an obligation under international law to prevent and combat incitement to hatred and to promote diversity, mutual understanding and solidarity”. But, as Freddie Attenborough writes in an article for the FSU website, “At the softer end of the spectrum, the term ‘hate speech' becomes something of a legal misnomer, since what is being referred to are forms of expression that some people or groups may indeed claim to find insulting, upsetting, or offensive, but that nonetheless receive and warrant legal protection”. Freddie continues, “The introduction of this element of subjectivity into the policing of hate speech – the continuing elongation of the spectrum at its softer end, as it were – has not been entirely unintentional, allowing as it does for organisations like the UN to rearticulate what qualifies as ‘hatred' in their own political interests, thus widening the net of applicability to various individuals and groups whose dissenting views on climate change, mass immigration, and LGBTQ+ issues are ideologically inconvenient”. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

The FSU has reviewed each of the main party manifestos (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Reform) for what they have to say about the five freedoms that we defend: freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. In today's episode, we compare and contrast the results of our review. Free expression topics covered include Leveson Part 2, conversion therapy, EDI and the murky waters of misinformation and disinformation. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

The Free Speech Fates have woven a Greek thread through today's episode, starting with the Olympic Games. A 33-page ‘Portrayal Guidelines' document, published ahead of this summer's Paris Games, states that a person's sex is not assigned based on genetics alone. As reported by the Telegraph, the International Olympic Committee has been accused by Martina Navratilova of waging a 1984 version of war on women after asking journalists not to use terms such as “born male” or “biologically male” to describe transgender athletes. It argues that such labels are dehumanising and constitute “problematic language”. Despite the ferocious backlash, Yiannis Exarchos, chief executive of Olympic Broadcasting Services, promised that his team in Paris would use the guidelines as “our Bible”, and “we call on our colleagues across all media to embrace them”. Meanwhile, Greek philosophers are at risk of being scrubbed out of various study courses. A new toolkit for ‘decolonising' philosophy in secondary schools and universities summarily dismisses canonical western philosophers from Plato and Aristotle through to Descartes and Wittgenstein as ‘dead white males' who engaged in solipsistic “armchair theorising” and must now make way for more exciting and sophisticated voices from the ‘Global South' (Mail, Times). The toolkit was drawn up by four undergraduate student interns, working alongside four academic philosophers at SOAS (formerly the School of Oriental and African Studies) in London. We end by discussing our fears around a new form of diversity training, namely ‘plus-size inclusivity training'. Our concerns appear to be shared by oncologist Professor Karol Sikora, who is quoted in the article, “Plus-size inclusivity training is just the sort of nonsense that the senior management in the NHS will make part of the ridiculous politically inspired mandatory training all doctors are forced to do. Please bring back some common sense!”. We couldn't agree more. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

As reported in the Mail, Durham university last week postponed a debate on whether “Palestinian Leadership is the Biggest Barrier to Peace”. According to the article, a 'mob' of pro-Palestine protesters locked students inside a chamber for more than two hours and created a human chain around the building. Mohab Ramadan, a speaker for the opposition and founder of the university's Israeli-Palestinian Resolution Society also received a hostile reception when he visited the protesters' encampment. In response, he told them, “Granting yourself what you're denying to others is shameful. To deny others the freedom to speak and debate when you yourself have encamped on Palace Green and been tolerated, allowed to speak and be heard by the entire University is unforgivable. I supported you and believed in your cause, arguing passionately for Palestine, but your actions have alienated the very people you seek to persuade”. Interestingly, Durham is at the top of the FSU's league table of universities with the worst record of defending free speech - we've had to defend more students and staff from there than any other university in the UK. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that university staff in Exeter feel coerced to sign an anti-transphobia pledge. These calls to allyship are reminiscent of the ‘struggle sessions' that were prevalent during China's cultural revolution. We end with a tweet about King Alfred that causes us to revisit our discussion on the Anglo Saxons, this time in the context of so-called Queer Theory. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

The Free Speech Union has responded to the Office for Students' (OfS) consultation on its proposed new guidance for English universities on how best to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus. Realistically, the OfS's approach to freedom of speech is likely to be unpopular with universities and, as a result, could face legal challenge. Our response sets out why we think the OfS's position is legally defensible and how it could be improved. We also discuss the University of Cambridge's Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, which we believe to be very positive - although the student magazine Varsity appeared less enthused. Sticking with the university world, an article in the Telegraph by an anonymous student caught our eye this week. When it comes to social media use, the writer observes that, “We aren't posting online because we think we will have a clear impact. We're doing it because of a huge moral impetus to speak out on issues - whether or not they concern us and whether or not we are familiar with them - and to be ‘right about them'”. The student continues, “The reward? A feedback loop of heart “reacts” and supportive comments, and endless approval in the form of retweets and likes”. In the follow-up discussion, Ben highlights three damaging experiments that have been carried out on our young people in recent years: trans ideology, lockdowns and smartphones. We finish with the new Appendix that we have added to our EDI Tax briefing paper. It runs through two egregious examples of EDI training, both highlighted to us by concerned FSU members. The first is a mandatory training course for any Amazon employees with supervisory responsibilities. It is produced by ‘Glamazon', the company's internal LGBT+ affinity group. The second is a guide produced by The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, a professional association, that's intended for all speech and language therapists, as well as support workers and students. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

The first quarter of 2024 was the FSU's busiest yet for free speech case work and we begin by reflecting on what insight this gives us into the state of cancel culture in the UK. Moving to the global scale, The Guardian last week revealed the headlines from Article 19's Global Expression Report 2024. According to the analysis, more than half of the world's population cannot speak freely. We dig into the statistics for the UK and focus on the troubling longer-term trends revealed by the analysis. Over the last ten years or so, the UK has fallen from the mid-range of the ‘open' category to the bottom with a score of 81. But we are not alone. Article 19's report reveals how over the last decade, 6.2 billion people across 78 countries experienced a deterioration of their freedom of expression while only 303 million people across 18 countries saw improvement. We end with an article published in Spiked by one of the FSU's founding directors and Advisory Council member, Inaya Folarin Iman. She argues that instead of claiming that hate-speech laws are being weaponised against ethnic-minority Britons, outlets such as Channel 4 News ought to do more questioning of the need for hate-speech laws in the first place. As Inaya says in the article, “If you call for censorship of so-called hate speech, it will eventually be used against you”, before concluding that “the moral of the story is that we should do away with all hate-speech laws”. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

Ben spoke at the launch of SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network) in Parliament last week and made the point that the FSU has handled over 700 cases relating to gender critical beliefs. It's perhaps not surprising, therefore, that sex and gender feature in our first main item. The Telegraph reports how civil servant and FSU member Eleanor Frances is crowdfunding to pay for an employment tribunal against two government departments on several grounds, including indirect discrimination based on her philosophical beliefs. Jill Levene, FSU legal counsel, is quoted in the article, “Eleanor's treatment is a clear example of a civil service that has been captured by radical progressive ideology”. This week, the FSU also helped out in the academic world. Senior administrators at Cardiff University decided a panel discussion on ‘Academic Freedom in the UK' wasn't an ‘internal' event, leaving organisers scrambling to find £1,500 to pay for security and venue hire. We were able to step in via our Mactaggart Programme and stump up the cash so the event can go ahead. Next up, an article by Ed West in The Spectator caught our eye. It exposes the ongoing attempts to erase the Anglo-Saxons, which includes, for example, the renaming of the “International Society of Anglo-Saxonists” to the rather less evocative, “International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England”. Such tactics will be familiar to anyone au fait with the ambition of the ideologues to interpret our history through the dismal prism of “whiteness”, “privilege” and “decolonisation”. We end with the case of Professor Nana Sato-Rossberg and the refreshing news that we are allowed to make enthusiastic comments about a person's country of origin. In reaching its conclusion, the Employment Tribunal panel said that it had “reminded itself” of the following passage from Justice Underhill's ruling in Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336: “Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. Whilst it is very important that employers and tribunals are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by offensive comments or conduct (which are related to protected characteristics)… it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.” ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

Today we take a slightly different tack and explore the 1999 film ‘The Matrix', which imparts a deep well-spring of metaphors for describing cancel culture. In addition to being an action-packed blockbuster, the movie touches on philosophical ideas from such luminaries as Lewis Carroll, René Descartes, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Moving on to looming free speech battles, we were concerned to see Ali Milani, national chair of Labour Muslim Network, quoted in The Telegraph saying, “We have to show we are taking Islamophobia seriously, in legislation and in our own party structures”. This will ring alarm bells for all listeners familiar with the recent essay on Islamophobia penned by Tim Dieppe. We agree with Tim that if the proposed APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) definition were to find further purchase in government, it could rapidly lead to blasphemy law by the backdoor. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

FSU General Secretary, Toby Young, was nearly abducted last week by the infamous Hate Monster during a visit to Scotland. Video footage shows Toby finally triumphing over the beast, which he describes as “a cartoon creature that looks like a hairy pepperoni”. The Pepperoni of Hate would doubtless approve of VisitBritain's latest language guide. As reported in the Mail and by the FSU's Communications Officer, Freddie Attenborough, the flagship tourism agency has told workers that in order to foster a “culture of belonging”, they must not use words such as ‘blindspot', ‘blackspot', ‘man hours' – even ‘powwow'. Such language is not sufficiently inclusive, apparently, alongside lots of other words and phrases that have been “used for generations”. Eagle-eyed readers will spot that Freddie has peppered his article with VisitBritain's banned words, something of which we heartily approve. There's good news and bad news in our final section as we discuss the new pronoun mandate issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in America and detailed in Unherd. More positively, the Telegraph reports that UK bosses are getting nervous about the corporate diversity drive and rowing back on some of its more extreme manifestations. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

We whizz through a couple of this week's free speech headlines today before providing listeners with an update on Linzi Smith's case against Newcastle United and the Premier League, a story which has now been picked up by the BBC. Linzi is crowdfunding to assist with her next legal stage under the relevant pre-action protocol. This is a David and Goliath situation as both organisations are well-funded and will have strong legal representation. Any listeners interested in contributing can find all the detail here. An interview of Billy Bragg in The Guardian caught our eye this week, particularly a couple of his comments towards the end of the piece, “My problem with people like Rowling, like Julie Bindel, is really who they are lined up with” and “[..] that's what I see with Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table". We discuss how and why people in the culture war seem so keen to identify with their ‘tribe' rather than the merits of the issue in hand – especially when that issue relates to free expression. We end with an update on the case of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen. She has already been tried and acquitted by two courts for publicly expressing her Christian beliefs but has now had her acquittal appealed to the country's Supreme Court, with the prosecution continuing to call for a punitive fine. Executive Director of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Paul Coleman said: “This is a watershed case in the story of Europe's creeping censorship. The state's insistence on continuing this prosecution after almost five long years, despite such clear and unanimous rulings from the lower courts is alarming. The process is the punishment in such instances, resulting in a chill on free speech for all citizens observing.” ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

Toby Young has written a sobering piece in this week's Spectator, surveying speech-restricting laws in the works across the world, from Poland to Canada – the latter threatening to establish a form of speech precrime. While it is troubling to see how far free expression has dropped down the priority list of governments, Toby ends with a call to practical action, “I think the time has come to set up a Canadian Free Speech Union. If you'd like to help, email me on tobyyoung@freespeechunion.org”. Meanwhile back at FSU(UK) HQ, we've just had our busiest three months ever in terms of new free speech cases – more than 250. Our success rate remains steady at 74%, while the gender/transgender issue continues to dominate all that we do, accounting for 44% of the free speech cases reported to us so far in 2024. Moving on from facts and figures, an article by Ben Cobley in The Critic caught our eye this week, entitled “On conservative despair”. It presents quite a bleak picture of our cultural moment, but also equips us to understand the times and, as Ben says, sends us back to moments in history when there has been successful fight-back against unwelcome change. We end with a quick signpost to an article by Rachel Rosario Sánchez. She references our briefing note on the EDI Tax and underlines the point that “The Stasi-wannabees running EDI meetings demonstrate that acceptance cannot be compelled, least of all by the authoritarian bullies at the top”. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

One of our recurring bugbears is the imperious messaging that has seeped into all corners of British society, lecturing us on what to think and say as we go about our business. A current TV advertising campaign against ageism is a case in point. No-one wants people of different ages to be excluded from society, but it is rather galling to be slapped on the wrist for using harmless phrases like, “you can't teach an old dog new tricks”. It turns out that local authorities have also latched onto the re-education trend. As reported in The Telegraph, the FSU has been pushing back on councils that have started using PSPOs (Public Spaces Protection Orders) to police every aspect of our behaviour in public – including our speech. As Ben makes clear, we suspect this battle may prove to be a frustrating game of ‘whack-a-mole' for a while yet. We briefly mention a recent exposé of the FSU's numerous successes in Byline Times before moving on to examine the Cass Review Final Report, which was published last week. Dr Hilary Cass explicitly addresses the toxicity of the ongoing gender debate in her Foreword, “There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop”. The mainstream media has taken proper notice of the Cass review and we ponder how much hope we can reasonably now pin on a change in the direction and tone of the discussion. We end today's episode with a quick review of the findings from a poll commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. Among a list of rather depressing statistics is the finding that 52% of the British Muslims polled want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Muhammed. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

As Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act comes to the end of its first week, the number of ‘hate crimes' reported to Police Scotland has ticked over the 8,000 mark. This was entirely predictable and no doubt reflects a combination of reporting by those keen to make use of the act's censorious powers and mischievous attempts at exposing its almost comically authoritarian intent. What's also clear is how the new Act has quickly become a major distraction for Police Scotland, which needs to pay its officers overtime, handle the public relations fall out and continue to address ordinary crime. Having now welcomed nearly 1,000 new members to the Free Speech Union, we've set up a Hate Speech Hotline in case any of them get into trouble with the police about something they've said. We've also put an arrangement in place with Levy & McRea, a top firm of criminal lawyers in Scotland, so that if any of our members are arrested or interviewed under caution for something speech-related we can come to their aid. You can find the Hotline number, as well as detailed instructions about what to do if you're arrested in Scotland for a speech-related offence in this set of FAQs, here. We move on to discuss a piece of research the FSU released in March entitled, “The EDI Tax: How Equity, Diversion and Inclusion is Hobbling British Businesses”. It was great to see our survey results reported in The Telegraph in an article that highlighted how nearly a quarter of employees going through EDI and/or climate training have been compelled to say things they don't believe. The release of our report coincided with the publishing of the Inclusion at Work Panel's recommendations, several of which alluded to problems akin to those uncovered in our survey. We end today with a discussion on Open Data, or rather the lack thereof. Writing in The Times, conservative MP for Harborough, Neil O'Brien, raises concerns that the failure of multiple government departments to publish granular migration data in the way that they used to is potentially frustrating an important debate. ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.

By the time this episode of ‘That's Debatable!' is released, the not-so-new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act will have come into force. We mark the occasion with a dive into an excellent piece by a concerned Scot, writing under the pseudonym C.J. Strachan. The article reaches back to 17th century Scottish history – the case of Thomas Aikenhead – and includes the powerful words that the 20 year-old wrote on the morning of his execution for blasphemy, “It is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure”. With all that has been going on, listeners will not be surprised to hear that we have seen a marked uptick in the number of new FSU members living north of the border. We take a few moments, therefore, to explain how we are configured to support our Scottish members, including an overview of the FSU's Scotland Office. There is good news to mark in the case of Rachel Maclean MP where we assisted in the successful scrubbing of a Non-Crime Hate Incident (‘NCHI') against her name. We continue to support Murdo Fraser MSP who is facing a similar battle in Scotland. We end with some April Fools' Day fun, while remaining all too aware of how truth and absurdity are now more difficult to distinguish than ever.   ‘That's Debatable!' is edited by Jason Clift.