It is often said that the test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
If this stands to reason then our current crop of politicians are as genius as they come.
Our Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is just one example of this theory in action.
This week his plans to appoint a “free speech” adviser with powers to investigate and fine universities found to be “censoring” academics for their views were confirmed.
Cambridge philosophy don Arif Ahmed will take up this rather bluntly titled new role of “Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom”.
Professor Ahmed told the Times newspaper he aimed to use this position to stand up for “all views”. Perhaps he, and Mr Sunak, have forgotten that to do this very thing is illegal under the Conservative Party’s own legislation?
Under this government’s flagship Public Order Act, it is now against the law to partake in any form of peaceful demonstration within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Even silent prayer or holding a banner may carry a two-year custodial sentence.
Even prior to the Act gaining Royal Assent in May, several people faced criminal charges for praying silently within the boundaries of these chillingly named “Public Spaces Protection Orders”.
In the case of parish priest Fr Sean Gough, he was harangued by police officers over a sticker on his parked vehicle, and quizzed over whether he thought passers-by might find his cassock “intimidating”.
The amendment, an updated version of one rejected several times over in recent years, was proposed by Labour MP Stella Creasy last October. The Conservatives did precious little to oppose it, with an overwhelming majority of its MPs approving or abstaining on the clause.
The Government did not even whip against the amendment, meaning they failed to ensure its MPs would be formally pressured to vote against it. This is puzzling. When a similar amendment – also to a major government bill- -was brought forward by Labour MP Dr Rupa Huq in 2021, Conservative members were instructed to vote it down. If not for this calculated action or inertia from the Whips office – we cannot yet be sure what the truth is – it is likely that this attempt at such an overreach would have been rightly smacked down.
Perhaps we will have to wait for the published memoirs concerning the Truss interlude to discover whether this decision was down to chaos or calculation. Alas, the damage is now done.
Just a few short years ago in 2018, a specially commissioned Home Office review into the matter concluded that such a measure was unnecessary, given that rare instances of genuine harassment were covered by existing laws. Neither parliamentarians nor campaigners for this legislation have ever offered any compelling new arguments or facts to contradict this review, nor did the government make efforts to double down on its findings.
This government blatantly lacks coherence in its approach to freedom of thought and assembly, and this latest announcement seems like little more than an attempt to “prove” to disaffected voters that they have done “something” about free speech on campus and cash in on the “culture wars”. I doubt that the timing of this announcement, which comes hot on the heels of the dramatic protests against Kathleen Stock’s visit to the Oxford Union, is entirely coincidental.
There were some standout speeches in the house. DUP MP Carla Lockhart told the story of Alina Dulgheriu, a woman whose “beautiful daughter would not be here today without support from a volunteer handing out a leaflet outside the clinic”, and a woman who, feeling under pressure to terminate her pregnancy, decided to keep her baby after also being offered a leaflet by a pro-life volunteer near the clinic. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh MP reiterated the validity of the 2018 review.
Not only have the Tories actively erected more barriers against free thought, specifically for those seeking to defend the equal dignity of all human life, they have dramatically failed to rein in those created by the last Labour administration.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 outlaws sending any message via a public electronic communications network that is “considered grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”. Rightly, the freedom campaign group Liberty complain that such a broad offence “carries huge implications for freedom of expression” and it is no surprise that it has been used to target jovial, albeit misjudged communications.
The Equality Act 2010, ushered in shortly before Labour’s election loss that year, is just as murky. Whatever Sunak’s new schemes suggest, universities are obliged, under parts 5 and 6 of the 2010 Act, to these anti-harassment provisions.
These clauses place a legal duty on universities and other public bodies to avoid violating a “person’s dignity” and “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person”. It is difficult to envisage how freedom of speech in the higher education context can be imposed or not subject to judicial review.
With time running out before the next general election, the Tories are far more eager to manage voters’ reactions to heated topics, rather than responding to them with coherent pledges.
Conservative protests about the barrier of “the blob” to their plans after having well over a decade to prove themselves to the public are petulant and unconvincing.
Britain’s oldest political party is on life support, and pretending to care about an issue they have actively sabotaged is unlikely to revive them.