Dear Mike Buchanan,
Welcome to the FSU’s weekly newsletter, our round-up of the free speech news of the week. As with all our work, this newsletter depends on the support of our members and donors, so if you’re not already a paying member please sign up today or encourage a friend to join and help turn the tide against cancel culture. You can share our newsletters on social media with the buttons at the bottom of this email (although not if you’re reading this on a desktop). If someone has shared this newsletter with you and you’d like to join the FSU, you can find our website here.
The state of free speech in Northern Ireland – book your tickets here
We will be kicking off 2024 with our first visit to Belfast on Friday 26th January. We have an incredible panel of speakers lined up – Toby Young, Andrew Doyle, Stella O’Malley, David Quinn, Ella Whelan and Jeffrey Dudgeon. They’ll be discussing ‘The State of Free Speech in Northern Ireland’ at the Titanic Hotel.
Tickets are open to all, so do spread the word and book here to avoid disappointment.
Denial of services and the corporate war on the unwoke
Last year, the FSU played a big part in persuading the government to change the UK’s Payment Services Regulations, making it more difficult for banks and payment processors to close customer accounts for political reasons.
But as Toby Young points out in his latest piece for Spiked, you only have to glance at the FSU’s case files to see that ‘de-banking’ is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the withdrawal of services from people who hold lawful but dissenting views.
In the past year, we’ve often gone to bat now for people who’ve been kicked out of professional associations for wrongthink.
One recent FSU case involved a man threatened with suspension from British Cycling for objecting to a racially segregated event.
Another ongoing case concerns a Newcastle United fan who has been banned from St James’s Park for two seasons because of gender critical opinions she expressed on social media. We’re currently helping her appeal that decision, but we suspect hundreds – possibly thousands – of football fans have been blacklisted by the Premier League for expressing unfashionable but perfectly lawful views.
The fact is that discriminating against people because of their beliefs – provided they’re deemed “worthy of respect in a democratic society” – is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. But one of the reasons services are being withdrawn from so many people whose views fall outside the Overton window is because equalities law is being misapplied, often at the behest of activist lobby groups like Stonewall.
Perhaps the most egregious example we’ve come across is that of Teresa Steele, a former solicitor who had her life-saving operation cancelled by a private hospital after she complained about a transgender nurse and asked for assurance that only biological women would be involved in her intimate care (Telegraph).
This is not the only recent example of critical care being denied to women with gender critical views.
A private medical hospital in the United States recently refused to treat a woman with breast cancer because of the “disrespectful and hurtful remarks” she made in a private email to her physician. What were the outrageous things she said? She objected to the presence of a trans pride flag in the clinic’s reception area (Reduxx).
In Canada, a woman was evicted from a domestic violence shelter for women after expressing concerns to management about gender identity ideology, following two separate incidents with transgender women in the residence. “The fact is you’re transphobic,” the manager told her during the eviction process, adding: “[T]his is not the right place for you.” (Reduxx).
Closer to home, recent guidance from the NHS Confederation – published in partnership with the LGBT Foundation – warns that patients may be found guilty of direct discrimination or harassment if they refuse care from a transgender medical professional. (Which isn’t true.)
The FSU is currently working with Ms Steele to better understand the scale of this problem in the UK’s healthcare sector.
How to stand up for freedom of speech and thought – tickets now available
On Saturday 3rd February we’ll be at the Anthony Burgess Foundation for a night of discussion followed by some live music. FSU General Secretary Toby Young will be joined by Sean Corby and Freedom in the Arts co-founder Denise Fahmy, two courageous FSU members who’ve fought important legal battles to defend free speech in the workplace.
There will also be some live music. Sean is a professional musician and he’ll be playing from his extensive jazz repertoire with fellow musician Jonathan Enright. Tickets are available here.
“Are you now or have you ever been a gender critical feminist?”
Camden Council has been accused of “needlessly discriminatory behaviour” after demanding that companies in its supply chain “align” with its “values”, and prove their commitment to radical LGBTQ+ ideology (Mail, Telegraph).
According to information released by the Labour-run local authority, it has begun asking businesses “to demonstrate their commitment to LGBTQ+ equality before we procure them”.
Building this commitment into the procurement process is, the Council says, not just about being more “inclusive” and working “with businesses whose values align with our own” – it’s also an attempt to leverage its “position of power” to “positively influence” society.
It would be nice to give Camden Council’s leaders props for shepherding what you sense they feel are a maddeningly wayward flock of transphobic taxpayers towards the broad sunlit uplands of ‘the right side of history’. But alas, as Harry Phibbs points out for ConHome, they themselves are but the mere servants of a Higher Authority – not central government, of course (this is Camden Council, after all), but Stonewall; and, in this instance, the trans charity’s Workplace Equality Index.
The Council first submitted – in both senses of that word – to the Index back in 2019, and is keen to point out that it did so “with the support of colleagues in our Rainbow Network”. More recently, it boasted about having reached #47 in Stonewall’s progressive league table, an achievement that meant it was: “Top out of all local authority entrants. This is something we are really proud of!”
As Caroline ffiske has documented on X, one of the (many) questions an organisation is expected to answer when bidding for a contract with Camden Council is: “When a potential supplier does not meet LGBTQ+ inclusion scrutiny, how does the organisation respond?” Helpfully, Stonewall has provided three possible answers for an organisation to choose from: “A. By not awarding the contract; B. By requiring improvements as a condition of contract. C. None of the above.”
“It sounds like we should put C – let’s put C,” said no procurement executive at a facilities management company, ever.
So, does Camden’s new policy mean that a firm that tenders for a contract, and is able to offer a lower price and better quality than its competitors, would not be chosen if its ‘values’ didn’t align with those of the Council? And if so, would such a decision even be legal?
It’s certainly difficult to see how this policy can be squared with best value statutory guidance for local councils, which states: “Authorities should avoid gold-plating the Equality Act 2010 and should not impose contractual requirements on private and voluntary sector contractors, over and above the obligations in that Act. Local authorities should seek to remove unnecessary paperwork and obstacles to contract compliance thereby making it easier for small and medium firms and the voluntary sector to apply and bid for contracts.”
The devil here of course will be in the detail. If the policy simply asks that contracting parties don’t unlawfully discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, then that’s not an unreasonable ask. If, on the other hand, it requires tenderers to comply with particular aspects of LGBTQ+ ideology, then that may be challengeable.
Needless to say, the FSU is looking into this. If you know of a company that tendered for a contract at Camden Council, but lost out to an inferior competitor because it didn’t have a gold star from Stonewall, please let us know.
The latest episode of the FSU’s weekly podcast is out now
This week’s talking points include: the Spectator standing up to a sponsor that wanted to cancel top oncologist (and lockdown sceptic) Prof Karol Sikora from a panel event on Britain’s cancer crisis for that most unforgiveable of crimes in the eyes of woke corporations: “not aligning with its values”.
Hosts Tom and Ben also discuss the FSU’s reservations about new diversity and inclusion guidance that’s been drawn up by the UK’s financial watchdogs – the FCA and the PRA – that risk further suppressing workplace free speech at over 40,000 businesses in the UK.
They round off the first episode of 2024 with a look back at the final two FSU events of 2023, our Christmas Comedy Night, and the FSU’s annual Christmas Review.
The link to download the episode in full is here.
Conversion therapy bill – write to your MP
We need you to keep writing to your MPs urging them to oppose a bill banning conversion therapy.
Last month, a Westminster Hall debate brought by Labour MP Christian Wakeford took place in which a succession of Labour MPs urged the government to bring forward such a bill – and there’s still a risk that the government will publish one in due course. In addition, a private members bill in the Lords banning conversion therapy is due to have its second reading this month, and another private members bill, this one proposed by the hard Left Brighton MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, is due to be debated in March.
Of course, there are some forms of ‘conversion therapy’ that few people would object to being banned, such as attempts to stop someone from being gay or transgender via exorcism, electro-shock therapy, physical violence or food deprivation. No-one is disputing that ‘treatments’ of this kind have no place in a free society, but a bill isn’t required to ban them. Such practices are already illegal in the UK.
So what is it, exactly, that parliamentarians like Russell-Moyle are trying to ban? As Conservative Peer Lord Jackson writes for Parliament News, “the answer is rather chilling”.
It seems, Lord Jackson says, they want to “stop the expression of certain opinions”.
What this means if a ban is passed is that gender critical feminists who believe in the reality of biological sex will be in the firing line, as will church leaders who uphold traditional beliefs about sex and sexuality in their conversations and prayers with gay and trans congregants. And by ‘firing line’ we mean they could face up to five years in jail.
Then there are the parents, teachers, psychotherapists and doctors who dissent from the ‘gender affirmative model’ that has taken hold in child and adolescent gender identity services in recent years, and which encourages clinicians to affirm rather than question a child’s chosen gender identity, before putting them on a medical pathway that can have lifelong, irreversible consequences. Trans activists and their parliamentary allies have made clear that they regard any attempts to dissuade a child from heading down this pathway as a form of ‘conversion therapy’, and would happily imprison anyone who attempts it.
These might seem like outlandish fears, but in the Australian state of Victoria, where ‘conversion therapy’ has been banned since 2021, parents who refuse to support their child’s request for puberty blockers are now at risk of prosecution.
Religious leaders are also held to be carrying out an illegal act if they tell people “that their gender identity is not real”, if they say prayers that “ask for a person to not act on their attractions” or “talk about a person’s brokenness or need to repent”.
The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission even suggests alternative ways that Christian residents of Victoria can “continue practicing your faith without causing harm”, including petitions that are reassuring that someone is perfect just the way they are, and other similarly formulated prayers that sound like lyrics from Ed Sheeran’s back catalogue (Daily Signal).
Please use our campaigning tool to contact your MP and tell them to vote against any bill banning conversion therapy and urge the Prime Minister not to compromise with the powerful LGBT lobby by publishing a draft bill. It only takes a couple of minutes to fill out. You can find it here.
AFFS produces new guidance on academics’ free speech rights
Our friends at Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS) have just published a one-page guidance document setting out the steps that English higher education providers (HEPs) must take to secure academics’ and students’ lawful free speech and that of visiting speakers (in Scotland and Wales the law is slightly different). If you’re reading this and you work – or study – at an English HEP this document is well worth downloading (here). As AFFS notes, the extent and onerous nature of universities’ legal requirements to secure free speech on campus are insufficiently appreciated by senior administrators, and thus poorly complied with.
Kind regards,
Freddie Attenborough
Communications Officer