Jewish students against Ken Loach cited in Lords’ university free speech debate
Peers at odds over giving 'equal weight' to the consequences of free speech, as antisemitism tsar uses Jewish students as an example
The UK’s government’s antisemitism tsar has tabled an amendment to proposed free speech legislation that would give equal weight to a university’s duty to protect the feelings of students who felt upset by the speech in question.
Lord Mann, a former Labour MP who now sits as an independent, explained his motivations during a committee meeting at the House of Lords last week when discussing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
Mann cited the example of anti-Israel filmmaker Ken Loach speaking at Oxford University during lockdown, and the inability – due to Covid restrictions – of some Jewish students to physically protest his appearance.
He also cited an example of a Jewish university student whose cousin had been killed in Israel by a group linked to a pro-Palestinian campus speaker.
“It is one thing to have the right in law to freedom of speech, but the consequences of the speech can be that some people are greatly distressed by the content, or that the speaker is then targeted and needs some support,” he said. “A duty of care would require universities to think through the consequences.”
Others warned of the implications of Mann’s amendment. Baroness Faulkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said he had misunderstood Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which deals with freedom of expression.
Under this legislation, free speech should be allowed except “for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.
Faulkner said Mann’s argument was that “opponents of a speaker have an equal right to protest or drown out what is being said… their right to be empowered is equal”. She warned the Grand Committee to be “extremely careful” about Mann’s amendment.
“The judgment of qualifying those rights, and making decisions about when the qualifications will apply, should rightly lie with the provider and not necessarily be set out in legislation,” she said.
comments