Latest news with #LordYoung
Telegraph
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Rayner faces legal challenge over ‘secret' Islamophobia talks
Angela Rayner faces a legal challenge over 'secretive' plans to revive a definition of Islamophobia that will have a 'chilling' effect on free speech. The Free Speech Union (FSU) said the process would rubber-stamp a controversial definition of Islamophobia, which Labour would then adopt. The definition, which treats Islamophobia as a type of racism, has been criticised for being too widely drawn. The FSU has written to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing concern the new definition is being drawn up behind closed doors. The definition, which treats Islamophobia as a type of racism, has been criticised for being so expansive that it could threaten free speech, act as a de facto blasphemy law, and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion. Lord Young of Acton, the FSU's director, said: 'The Free Speech Union is concerned that the rush to proscribe 'Islamophobia' will have a chilling effect on free speech. 'If the Deputy Prime Minister presses ahead, we won't hesitate to bring a judicial review in the High Court, as we have with other decisions of this Government.' In his letter, Lord Young said the consultation questions appeared 'heavily weighted' in favour of a 'predetermined outcome', endorsing a definition 'closely aligned' with that put forward by the all party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims. This was adopted by Labour and stated that 'Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.' Lord Young said: 'The consultation questions appear exclusively focused on justifying the adoption of a standard definition of Islamophobia, and on exploring the extent to which Islamophobia should be classified as a form of racism. 'There are no questions inviting concerns about potential impacts on the right to freedom of speech, nor does the call for evidence actively seek out alternative perspectives.' Key groups that would challenge the impact on free speech and provide alternative views had not been invited to submit evidence – such as Christian Concern, The Christian Institute, Adam Smith Institute, and Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Lord Young. 'Non-transparency and avoidance of accountability' Most – if not all – of the five members of the working group had explicitly supported the controversial APPG definition of Islamophobia, including its chair Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, who wrote a foreword for the APPG report. Lord Young expressed concern that the working group's advice to ministers will be kept secret. 'Any attempt to refuse to disclose advice from the working group will indicate that scrutiny is not welcome on a topic that is fundamental to social cohesion and the rights of citizens,' he said. 'Any apparent or perceived bias will undermine confidence in the working group's advice, which will be further exacerbated in circumstances where the advice is not published.' Lord Young warned the secrecy and apparent exclusion of groups from the consultation risked breaching the Government's principles and engagement standards, which govern the working group. 'Non-transparency and avoidance of accountability will undermine the legitimacy of the working group,' he added. Mr Grieve has previously accepted that 'defining Islamophobia is extremely difficult for perfectly valid reasons relating to freedom of expression'. However, he said it was also clear that 'perfectly law-abiding Muslims going about their business and well-integrated into society are suffering discrimination and abuse'. Anti-Muslim hate surged to record levels last year, according to Tell Mama, an organisation tracking Islamophobia. It confirmed almost 6,000 reports as anti-Muslim incidents, more than double the number two years ago, with men targeted more than women for the first time since the body was founded in 2012.
Telegraph
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour's ‘pub banter' ban is fixing a made-up problem
Rupert Soames, the outspoken CBI chief, hit the nail on the head last week when he told a union chief that businesses are often confronted with what he calls the 'doctor problem'. Doctors, he explained, spend the majority of their time with just 5pc of people who are ill. Like GPs, the HR headaches employers face typically stem from a tiny fraction of staff. His point was that parts of the looming Employment Rights Bill, which will strengthen rights for workers and trade unions, are completely unnecessary. 'You don't go and lock all 100 chickens in a coop, for the fear that one is going to go wrong,' he argued, mixing his metaphors somewhat. A key example of the overreach of the new Bill is its so-called 'pub banter' ban provision, which will force venues such as pubs and universities to do all they can to protect employees from non-sexual third-party harassment. In a nutshell, it means pub and restaurant bosses could find themselves policing customer conversations and any jokes that staff might find offensive. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already warned that the proposed rules are too broad-brush and could lead to 'excessive limitations on debate'. But perhaps more importantly, there isn't actually much evidence that this is even an issue. The ban seems to be fixing a made-up problem. Free speech campaigner Lord Young will make this point at a Lords hearing on Monday, as the Bill continues to chug through the parliamentary process. He will pull out a survey from last year that shows that just 0.51pc of respondents reported experiencing non-sexual third-party harassment at work in the year to March. Policing something that appears to be a problem for just 0.51pc of workers could prove detrimental to already stretched small businesses such as family-owned pubs and restaurants, which work in boisterous environments and don't have hordes of HR and legal staff to support them. Lord Young will argue in the House of Lords today that such a rule could also have a much broader impact on culture, with football stadiums becoming like libraries and ''banter bouncers' in every beer garden'. Introducing red-tape to solve non-issues doesn't feel like a driver of economic growth, either. Why are we chewing over this 'Alice in Wonderland' clause, as one peer called it earlier this year, when there is so much more important stuff going on in the world? Cash-strapped companies are freezing hiring and sacking staff, while millions of Britons are still not working. Sickness is fuelling a worklessness crisis that incurs a huge cost to the economy. More men are giving up on work than in any other G7 nation. At a lunch last week, a group of recruiters were bemoaning the enormous amount of challenges facing the sector. Notably, nobody brought up offensive customers as an issue. There is a disconnect between the issues the Bill is trying to tackle and the real issues facing businesses, with Soames complaining that the Government has not been listening to business concerns. Ministers say the reforms will boost the economy by raising living standards and creating more job opportunities. In reality, cash-strapped businesses are cutting jobs, hiring people on temporary contracts and thinking twice about taking a chance on those with patchy CVs. Labour is doing itself no favours by pledging to combat a problem that barely exists and setting off a lot of huffing and puffing in the process. A huge amount of unnecessary attention has been thrown in the direction of this so-called pub banter crackdown. On the one side we have union chiefs arguing that those critical of it are just protecting 'their right to be offensive' – and I agree that 'banter' is often just a veil for rudeness – while on the other, critics insist that the clause will simply encourage people to 'sue for hurt feelings'. This is a valid concern, given that there were almost 50,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be resolved at the end of last year. A hazy rule around overheard conversations could cause claims to snowball even further. To be fair to Labour, this isn't a totally out of the blue or novel idea. It was only in 2023 that Rishi Sunak was facing a Tory revolt over plans to introduce a law that would allow shop assistants, bar staff and doctors to sue their employers if a member of the public offended them at work. The same arguments were rolled out at the time, with senior Tories warning that the proposed law would lead to an explosion of litigation and force business owners to run their establishments like a 'police state'. Ministers decided to let the idea fall by the wayside after the legislation triggered a huge outpouring of Tory anger. Knowing all the arguments, Labour had the perfect chance to do more research to work out whether this law is really needed and pin down exactly what the issues are. When deciding that the legislation was needed, the party could have crafted a more precise law to avoid the kind of controversy Sunak's ideas triggered. Alas, ministers appear to have done none of this. I don't suspect they are actually trying to stop respectful debates about controversial issues taking place in pub gardens, but rather ensure that anyone who feels hurt by overheard 'banter' at work isn't ignored. But it's not a pressing issue, so let's move on to the stuff that really matters. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lords pressure Rayner to protect Right-wing views at work
Angela Rayner is under pressure to introduce legal protections for staff expressing Right-wing views at work as part of Labour's workers' rights reforms. Lord Young of Acton is to table a new amendment to Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill addressing what he claimed was 'a 'two tier' system in which, broadly speaking, Left-of-centre beliefs are protected by the Equality Act and Right-of-centre beliefs aren't.' The amendment will ban companies from punishing staff for discussing controversial political views at work, so long as they are legal. The Free Speech Union, Lord Young's campaign group, is currently aware of six cases involving Reform UK activists who have lost jobs because of their political views. Lord Young said there was 'little rhyme or reason' as to which beliefs enjoy protected status and which do not. Lord Young said: 'For instance, anti-Zionism is a protected belief, but Zionism isn't. A belief in Democratic Socialism is protected, but a belief in Conservatism isn't.' The amendment has the backing of Baroness Fox, an independent peer, and Lord Young is to canvas support in the coming weeks. If the amendment passes, it must still be approved by the Commons. Under the Equalities Act, staff are protected from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliation, but neither Left or Right-wing views are protected unless they are judged to be philosophical beliefs. Last year a judge ruled that supporting Brexit, for example, did not amount to a protected political believe. The ruling came after Colette Fairbanks, a former Ukip councillor, was sacked by a charity for sharing 'offensive' posts about immigrants on social media. Ms Fairbanks took the charity to a tribunal, where she claimed she was 'bullied and harassed' over her political views. Dismissing her claim, employment judge Paul Jumble said: 'There has to be a distinction between a philosophical belief and a strongly held opinion. 'If, for example, 'wanting to leave the EU' was held to be a philosophical belief then more than half the British electorate would have a belief that fell within [equality laws], which could not be the intention of the legislation.' Lord Young said his amendment would mean that workers with differing views could argue more openly about politics at work. 'This amendment will mean employers cannot penalise their employees for expressing controversial political opinions in the workplace, provided those opinions are worthy of respect in a democratic society, not in conflict with the fundamental beliefs of others and not affiliated with a political party or organisation that's proscribed by the Terrorism Act,' he said. 'The purpose of my amendment is to give all political beliefs the same protected status.' Peers have been raising concerns about various parts of the Employment Rights Bill in recent weeks, with the House of Lords set to continue to examine individual parts of the legislation on Monday. The reforms will radically extend the powers of unions in the workplace and hand staff greater entitlement to sick pay and the ability to take employers to tribunal from day one on the job. Lord Young has already added an amendment in the Bill opposing the Government's plans for a so-called pub banter crackdown, which will force employers to protect staff from non-sexual, third-party harassment. The rules effectively mean companies must stop staff from being offended at work and critics fear it will lead to 'banter police' in pubs. In a speech on Monday, Lord Young will argue: 'This clause will plunge employers into a legal quagmire, force them to spend a fortune on obtaining and then implementing legal advice and will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech in those very places – pubs, bars, restaurants, football stadiums, universities – where people should be free to speak their minds. 'Who will bother to pop into their local for a drink if there are 'banter bouncers' in every beer garden, a 'pronoun policy' on every wall and the need to produce proof you've had DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] training before you can get served?' 'My Lords, if Sir Keir Starmer has his way, every stadium in the country will become a library.' A government spokesman said: 'The Employment Rights Bill will not affect anyone's right to lawful free speech, which this Government stands firmly behind. 'Any employee dismissed because of their political opinions can already bring a claim of unfair dismissal at any point.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's ‘pub banter' ban is fixing a made-up problem
Rupert Soames, the outspoken CBI chief, hit the nail on the head last week when he told a union chief that businesses are often confronted with what he calls the 'doctor problem'. Doctors, he explained, spend the majority of their time with just 5pc of people who are ill. Like GPs, the HR headaches employers face typically stem from a tiny fraction of staff. His point was that parts of the looming Employment Rights Bill, which will strengthen rights for workers and trade unions, are completely unnecessary. 'You don't go and lock all 100 chickens in a coop, for the fear that one is going to go wrong,' he argued, mixing his metaphors somewhat. A key example of the overreach of the new Bill is its so-called 'pub banter' ban provision, which will force venues such as pubs and universities to do all they can to protect employees from non-sexual third-party harassment. In a nutshell, it means pub and restaurant bosses could find themselves policing customer conversations and any jokes that staff might find offensive. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already warned that the proposed rules are too broad-brush and could lead to 'excessive limitations on debate'. But perhaps more importantly, there isn't actually much evidence that this is even an issue. The ban seems to be fixing a made-up problem. Free speech campaigner Lord Young will make this point at a Lords hearing on Monday, as the Bill continues to chug through the parliamentary process. He will pull out a survey from last year that shows that just 0.51pc of respondents reported experiencing non-sexual third-party harassment at work in the year to March. Policing something that appears to be a problem for just 0.51pc of workers could prove detrimental to already stretched small businesses such as family-owned pubs and restaurants, which work in boisterous environments and don't have hordes of HR and legal staff to support them. Lord Young will argue in the House of Lords today that such a rule could also have a much broader impact on culture, with football stadiums becoming like libraries and ''banter bouncers' in every beer garden'. Introducing red-tape to solve non-issues doesn't feel like a driver of economic growth, either. Why are we chewing over this 'Alice in Wonderland' clause, as one peer called it earlier this year, when there is so much more important stuff going on in the world? Cash-strapped companies are freezing hiring and sacking staff, while millions of Britons are still not working. Sickness is fuelling a worklessness crisis that incurs a huge cost to the economy. More men are giving up on work than in any other G7 nation. At a lunch last week, a group of recruiters were bemoaning the enormous amount of challenges facing the sector. Notably, nobody brought up offensive customers as an issue. There is a disconnect between the issues the Bill is trying to tackle and the real issues facing businesses, with Soames complaining that the Government has not been listening to business concerns. Ministers say the reforms will boost the economy by raising living standards and creating more job opportunities. In reality, cash-strapped businesses are cutting jobs, hiring people on temporary contracts and thinking twice about taking a chance on those with patchy CVs. Labour is doing itself no favours by pledging to combat a problem that barely exists and setting off a lot of huffing and puffing in the process. A huge amount of unnecessary attention has been thrown in the direction of this so-called pub banter crackdown. On the one side we have union chiefs arguing that those critical of it are just protecting 'their right to be offensive' – and I agree that 'banter' is often just a veil for rudeness – while on the other, critics insist that the clause will simply encourage people to 'sue for hurt feelings'. This is a valid concern, given that there were almost 50,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be resolved at the end of last year. A hazy rule around overheard conversations could cause claims to snowball even further. To be fair to Labour, this isn't a totally out of the blue or novel idea. It was only in 2023 that Rishi Sunak was facing a Tory revolt over plans to introduce a law that would allow shop assistants, bar staff and doctors to sue their employers if a member of the public offended them at work. The same arguments were rolled out at the time, with senior Tories warning that the proposed law would lead to an explosion of litigation and force business owners to run their establishments like a 'police state'. Ministers decided to let the idea fall by the wayside after the legislation triggered a huge outpouring of Tory anger. Knowing all the arguments, Labour had the perfect chance to do more research to work out whether this law is really needed and pin down exactly what the issues are. When deciding that the legislation was needed, the party could have crafted a more precise law to avoid the kind of controversy Sunak's ideas triggered. Alas, ministers appear to have done none of this. I don't suspect they are actually trying to stop respectful debates about controversial issues taking place in pub gardens, but rather ensure that anyone who feels hurt by overheard 'banter' at work isn't ignored.
