Fining Kathleen Stock's university does not protect free speech
Specifically, the OfS criticised the university's Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, which it said had created a 'chilling effect' for staff and students who felt unable to voice gender-critical opinions.
Some are heralding this news as a free-speech victory: a public recognition of the disgraceful treatment of Stock by the university is indeed welcome, as even now many fail to see why the whole debacle was so damning for free speech on campus and personally distressing for her.
This kind of external intervention by a regulator is needed, some argue, and they welcome the new powers the OfS might enjoy following the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
I am not cheering, though, despite being a free-speech absolutist. Sussex was my alma mater, and believe me, the problem with censorious behaviour long predates the Stock affair. The trans issue was just starting to crop up on campus in my second year; friends of mine were being ostracised from the leftie pools we all swam in for being perplexed with the demand that 'trans women were women'.
By the end of my time there, Judith Butler may as well have been handing out the handshakes at our graduation ceremony. Among both staff and students there were political biases that were hard to challenge for fear of being stigmatised.
The OfS claim that censorship was a top-down imposition by policies is at best generous, at worst inaccurate – the problem with free speech on campus runs much deeper. It's for this reason that fines and legal wrangling is not the solution for those of us who care about fighting censorship.
Free speech has long been in crisis on campus. You could crack that nut with fines and legislation, court rulings and government finger-wagging. But state supervision of universities is not going to solve the campus censorship crisis, nor is it something true freedom lovers should be comfortable with.
Take the response from Sussex University's vice-chancellor Professor Sasha Roseneil, who has managed to turn the ruling into a fight about minority rights. 'We will strongly contest these findings and have grave concerns about the implications of its decisions for students and staff, especially those from minoritised groups', she wrote in an article for Politics Home.
The university's response to the ruling was to argue that it will now be all but 'impossible for universities to prevent abuse, harassment or bullying on campuses'. Such histrionic blindness to the issue at hand shows how deep the rot goes when it comes to campus censorship.
Things are changing – and not thanks to ministers or regulators. Instead, what has opened up a chink of light for discussion about free speech on campus is individuals sticking their neck on the line.
The trans issue has been the most influential in both escalating and challenging a culture of conformity on campus. Ever since women like Stock, or Jo Phoenix, went public, it has shone a spotlight on the inadequacy of our universities when it comes to defending free expression.
Free speech can't be imposed; it has to be the foundation of a university from which everything else follows. We need to win the battle of ideas on campus – that means more students involved in fighting for free speech by holding public discussions and standing up for their peers to disagree with them on contentious issues.
It means staff rediscovering their mettle and refusing to be bullied by administrative bodies waving policy documents. And finally, change will also have to come from outside the campus walls, where the censorious cry of 'you can't say that' just doesn't wash anymore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Mason: 'Probably acceptable 1% of prisoners are innocent'
Currently, there are 8234 prisoners in Scotland's prisons, with one per cent representing 82 prisoners. But when approached by The Herald on Sunday Mr Mason, who represents Glasgow Shettleston, appeared to backtrack on his argument. "It is not appropriate for one innocent person to be in prison or one guilty person to be out free in society. But we live in an imperfect world where I suspect in every country some people are wrongly imprisoned and some are wrongly free. So it is a question of trying to get the balance right," he said. READ MORE: His original view was made in correspondence with campaign group Justice for Innocent Men Scotland (JIMS). The group wrote to MSPs following concerns raised by advocate Thomas Leonard Ross KC that the interpretation by the courts of laws around the admissibility of evidence – brought in to protect the privacy and dignity of complainers in sexual offence cases – were risking the right of the accused to a fair trial. Mr Ross told The Herald last month: "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence? "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence." The situation revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. There are strict rules about what evidence can be heard in court in rape trials (Image: Jamie Simpson) Sometimes known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. These provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. After Mr Ross's intervention in The Herald the JMIS campaign group wrote to MSPs seeking to highlight the concerns he raised including over rules around the admissibility of evidence in sexual offence cases. "Sections 274 and 275 routinely block the defence from raising crucial facts about accusers, including prior false claims, mental health concerns, or motivations for fabrication," they wrote. "At the same time, prosecutors are free to attack the accused's character at will." Thomas Leonard Ross (Image: PA) Mr Mason wrote back to the campaigners saying he took their point that "a few people who are innocent have been found guilty by the courts and are wrongly imprisoned" but went on to argue that "the much greater problem is guilty men who have been let off by the courts and who should be in prison but are not". He then referred to the case of the former Scotland striker David Goodwillie. A civil court found in 2017 that the footballer and his former teammate David Robertson raped Denise Clair, but no criminal charges were filed against the pair. In February this year it was reported that legal aid has been approved to fund an application for the private prosecution of Mr Goodwillie for rape. Mr Mason added: "We need to get a better balance, especially in rape cases so that more men are found guilty and are punished." Independent MSP John Mason (Image: Andrew Milligan) In further correspondence on the same day Mr Mason expanded on his views before claiming: "You ask how many innocent people in prison is acceptable. As I said we are trying to get a balance in all of this. "I would have thought that one percent of prisoners being innocent is probably acceptable but 20% would not be. The counter argument would be how many guilty people is it acceptable to escape conviction?" He went on to say he would welcome approaches from constituents concerned about wrongful convictions and would look into the cases. The Herald on Sunday approached Mr Mason for a further explanation. "In an ideal world all the innocent people should be free and outside prison while all the guilty ones should be inside or punished in other ways. So in one sense it is not acceptable for one innocent person to be inside or one guilty person to be outside," he said. "However, we do not live in an ideal world. Witnesses lie in court, some people get a much better lawyer than others, judges can make mistakes, and juries can be swung by emotions or other factors. "So I am afraid that we are never going to have a system which gets every case absolutely right. We have to live with the reality that 0.1% or 1% or 10% of cases might end up in the wrong result. "So I think as a society we are trying to get the balance right… not having too many innocent people in jail and not having too many criminals escaping conviction." He added: "When it comes to rape and other sexual offences, the perpetrators are almost always men and the victims are almost always women. There has been a long running feeling that too many men who are guilty of these offences are getting off because there is little corroboration and the bar in a criminal court is too high. "Previous discussions have included whether the need for corroboration could be amended and I think this has happened to some extent. But I remain of the view that we have not got the balance right in rape cases and too many guilty men are escaping. "One example in recent years has been David Goodwillie. I feel the women were let down in this case and when my team Clyde FC signed him for the second time I stopped attending their games and have not been back since. "So while I would be sympathetic to anyone who is in prison and is innocent, and if it is a constituent I would be happy to get involved, I do not think the main problem we face in our criminal justice system is having too many innocent people in jail." Elaine Buckle, 60, of Pembrokeshire, whose husband Brian, 53, spent five and a half years in prison following a wrongful conviction, was shocked by Mr Mason's views. Elaine and Brian Buckle (Image: Elaine Buckle) "I don't agree with John Mason at all and as far as I can see he has no understanding of what it is like to be accused, convicted and to spend time in prison for something you haven't done," Ms Buckle, a supporter of the group JMIS, told The Herald. She added that her family had been left devastated by her husband's wrongful conviction. "Brian still struggles with his time in prison and suffers flash backs," she said. She added that before he went to prison he had had a highly paid job as a construction manager but now struggled with post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment and was unable to look for work. Read more: Mr Buckle was wrongly convicted in 2017 of 16 counts of historical child sex abuse and sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, a subsequent trial with new forensic evidence led to his conviction being quashed. In the Commons, the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has described Mr Buckle's case as a 'grave miscarriage of justice.' There have been longstanding concerns about the low conviction for rape than other crimes. Conviction for rape cases involving a single complainer is 24% compared to the overall conviction rate for all crime is 86%. Speaking to The Herald last month, Mr Ross said it was misleading to compare conviction rates for different types of crime. "In a murder case there might be 15 sources of evidence, from eyewitnesses, DNA, finger prints in murder cases, while in a rape case just there is very often only one source of evidence – namely the person making the complaint. "So it's entirely unsurprising that there are lower conviction rates for rape than murder." A Scottish Government spokeswoman has previously said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
Daily Mirror
16 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Tech Secretary Peter Kyle won't apologise for what he said about Nigel Farage - 'it's true'
The Tech Secretary refused to apologise for saying Farage's opposition to new online safety rules puts him on the side of predators - suggesting Reform UK are "wilfully misleading" the public about what the new rules do Tech Secretary Peter Kyle has doubled-down on his attack on Nigel Farage, saying the Reform UK leader's opposition to a new online safety crackdown puts him 'on the side of predators.' Writing for the Sunday Mirror, Mr Kyle said he'd never apologise for the remark, made earlier this week, 'Because it's true.' And he revealed how the new law was already being used to prosecute online offenders. New online safety protections for children came into force on July 25. Since that date, so-called "risky" sites and apps have been expected to use age checks to identify which users are children and subsequently prevent them from accessing pornography, as well as other harmful content including self-harm, suicide, eating disorders and extreme violence. Farage's Reform UK party has vowed to scrap Online Safety Act if it ever gains power, claiming it was a threat to free speech. And Farage has said Kyle's comments about him were 'absolutely appalling'. Mr Kyle highlighted two cases where the new law had been used to prosecute and jail online offenders. Last year, Nicholas Hawkes, 39, sent explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl. He was convicted under the new offence of cyber-flashing and sentenced to 66 weeks in prison. And Tyler Webb, 22, was the first to be charged with encouraging serious self-harm under the new act - and was sentenced to nine years and four months. Webb used the messaging app Telegram to repeatedly tell a vulnerable 22-year-old woman to cut herself, then to kill herself by hanging during a video call so she could watch. 'Let me be clear about what the Act does not do,' Mr Kyle wrote. 'It does not stop adults from posting or seeing anything online as long as it's legal and anyone who suggests that does not understand it or is willfully misleading.' He added: 'For years we fought for a safer internet for our children. I refuse to let anyone who is trying to use this issue for their own ends take that away.' 'I won't apologise, because it's true' Earlier this week Nigel Farage asked me to apologise for saying he was on the side of predators when he called for the Online Safety Act to be scrapped. But I won't do that. Because it's true. Under this law a 39 year old man was prosecuted for the new offence of cyber flashing because he sent a photo of his erect penis to a 15-year-old girl. These new categories of crimes are sadly necessary to combat crime in the modern world. But beyond these crimes the law takes steps to make the internet a safer place for children. If you're a parent, ask yourself this - do I want my child to see graphic violence and sexual content? Do I want kids as young as five to see porn on social media? Do I want strangers to be able to message my children - or anyone else's? And do I want them to be able to see my child's location when they're online? This is what the act does - it stops children from seeing things that they should not see - and that we would not want them to in the offline world - porn, extreme violence, suicide and self harm content, images and words that encourage and glorify eating disorders. But as well as blocking disturbing and upsetting images and messages from children's feeds, it also cracks down on child sex abuse images and videos. For the first time social media platforms have to detect and remove that horrific material which has shamefully lurked on the internet barely hidden from those sick enough to seek it out. It also means practical steps to protect children from strangers who want to do them harm. It stipulates that children's profiles and locations should be hidden to keep them safe by default. Because no adult should be able to message a child they do not know. And let me be clear about what the Act does not do - It does not stop adults from posting or seeing anything online as long as it's legal and anyone who suggests that does not understand it or is wilfully misleading. In my first week as Secretary of State I met with a group of bereaved families who have known the absolute worst of the internet. Some of those children were encouraged to kill themselves, others were egged on to do dangerous and ultimately fatal challenges and others still do not know exactly what role their child's online role played in their deaths. I have been clear that not only did we collectively fail their children but that I would do what I could to stop such awful deaths in the future. For years we fought for a safer internet for our children. I refuse to let anyone who is trying to use this issue for their own ends take that away. This government has a Plan for Change to keep children safe both online and offline so that they can live happy and fulfilled lives.
Telegraph
19 hours ago
- Telegraph
A sinister Left-wing cabal is turning Britain into a dystopia
Who would have thought that a generation after the collapse of communism, freedom of speech would become controversial? Surely we had definitively settled this question of whether governments should prohibit or limit the expression of opinions. The Free World, as it was then known, had won the argument without even having to take up arms. Those peoples who had been subjected to the official suppression of ideas and information had repudiated that tyranny of their own accord. In East Germany, they simply walked out from under it. In Soviet Russia, Gorbachev's attempt at a more open, liberalised regime ended in ignominious collapse because a little bit of freedom just increased the longing for more. So surely there can be no doubt: liberty of thought and expression is what modern peoples demand. Yet here we are. A democratically elected government in a nation which gave the world Magna Carta has apparently installed a dedicated bureau to monitor all opinions put forward in public discourse. Further, it proposes legislation which would compel any forum that gave a platform to opinions considered to be unacceptable, to remove them. This is, prima facie, outrageous: a betrayal not only of the historic principles of open democracy but of the victories of freedom over totalitarianism that marked the last century. So how on earth could anyone – any political party or governing class – in the Western world possibly think that such a move was necessary or desirable? It would be easy (indeed it is easy) simply to condemn it as the arrogant imposition of what a smug elite considers the limits of morally acceptable opinion. Any statement or assertion that appears to be encouraging or condoning racism, or even prejudice against an approved social minority, must be policed out of existence. It is scarcely necessary to warn where this policy could lead – or what it implies about the attitude of the current Government to its own population. But perhaps this is a more complex and confusing situation than it appears and paradoxically, some of the factors that contribute to it may be the result of precisely the ideological successes of which the West is most proud. What is it exactly that has produced this panic over unlimited public expression? It is the unbridled, unchecked and irresponsible dissemination of supposed 'information', or opinions based on deliberately deceptive information, on publicly accessible platforms often augmented by fake videos, AI doctored photographs and false 'evidence'. This is a new thing for which traditional democratic societies have no previous experience. We have become aware quite suddenly of the possible consequences in terms of civil disorder and mortal risk that the dissemination of such material can produce – and that it now spreads remarkably, and terrifyingly, quickly. Suspicion, distrust and their anarchic effects can be ignited and propelled at a speed that those responsible for keeping order in the streets have not previously encountered. So yes, as you will have gathered, I do believe that the rise of social media – which has no enforced codes of practice or legal liability – is presenting civil authority with an unprecedented set of problems. That observation, of course, is not original. It is, in fact, the official justification used by the government for its repressive measures. The added element in this toxic mix which has received less attention is the use that these media serve in the infiltration by professional activists of any convenient social cause. As a youthful Trotskyite, I was tutored in the techniques of exploiting any social discontent as a force for undermining trust in capitalism and what was considered to be the sham of democratic freedom. At the end of every meeting of what was then called International Socialism (IS), now known as the Socialist Workers Party, a list was recited of the latest venues at which we were expected to appear, brandishing pre-printed posters and demonstrating solidarity with whatever protest group was currently disrupting the functions of an industry, government department or public agency. When I see all those disparate agitator groups now, whether they are demonstrating on behalf of the environment or against racism – carrying identical placards (generally with the words 'Socialist Workers Party' emblazoned at the top), I can guess what instructions they have been given. Make as much noise and monopolise as much of the television news coverage as you possibly can. Try to make the story about you and your message, even if you have been bussed in to compete with a genuine spontaneous protest over a local issue. I thought of this again when the police got into big trouble for apparently offering protection to, or even escorting, 'Stand Up to Racism' counter protestors at the site of a migrant hotel demonstration. Their presence appeared to be endorsed by the police who seemed to be shielding them from the anger of unworthy locals. But what should be done if, say, an anti-racist group's planned arrival makes it necessary for the police to prevent any potential violent confrontation and breakdown of public order? That would be, in my experience, a classic professional activists' technique. They would exploit the fact that it is the first responsibility of the police to maintain order in the streets whatever the issue. The ultimate irony may be that this phenomenon has been given extra propulsion by the collapse of communism. Back in the dark days of the Cold War, infiltration by the Left was a serious business run by serious people. The Communist party loathed what they considered to be juvenile, undisciplined Trotskyist messing around. My friends and I were regularly warned that our indiscriminate, ill-thought out negativism was going to discredit the sacred Marxist cause. While IS (now the SWP) handed out copies of the Socialist Worker newspaper on street corners, the Communist Party members maintained their terrifying diligence, their 'cover' identities and their dedicated take over of trade unions and nuclear disarmament campaigns. That's all gone now. Anti-capitalism in its most inchoate, incoherent and irresponsible form is running the show and it is making use of all the opportunities modern technology offers to spread dangerous lies and inflammatory messages. There is no easy answer to this.
