Are people are only prepared to support freedom of speech and assembly when they already agree with the opinions of the people they are defending? In recent weeks I’ve wondered if this is true. With the renewed outbreak of the Israel-Palestine conflict and an increase in strong public feeling on both sides, some of the most vocal Conservative defenders of a free society in the recent past seem to have suddenly decided they aren’t such fans of these central democratic freedoms anymore.
Take Rishi Sunak, who last May defended my right to appear at the Oxford Union and to express my criticisms of the political demands of trans activists there — including my rejection of the idea that trans women are literally women. “A free society requires free debate,” he said at the time, continuing: “We should all be encouraged to engage respectfully with the ideas of others.” He also claimed a “tolerant society is one which allows us to understand those we disagree with”.
Yet a free society also requires having the right to protest peacefully, as long as the protest does not conflict with the rights of others. Non-violent protest is one of the principal mechanisms by which people can indicate their unhappiness with the political status quo. Somewhat contradictorily then, last week the Prime Minister suggested via his spokesman that the planned pro-Palestinian march should not go ahead, on the basis that the Armistice Day timing would be “provocative and disrespectful”.
Eventually, of course, the march took place. Still, by his intervention the Prime Minister conveyed an unfortunate wider message. Provocative and disrespectful a protest may be, but this on its own does not make it illegitimate. The ongoing wave of protests and civil unrest in Iran is profoundly disrespectful and provocative to the Islamic regime there — and all the better for it, in that case. Arguably the whole point of a protest is to show disrespect for some institution or set of ideas. But still, disrespect on its own is not a crime in this country, and nor is causing offence. As Right-wing pundits are very fond of reminding us in other contexts, words that cause offence are not for that reason violent.
Or consider Michael Gove, who frequently positions himself as a staunch defender of freedom of expression, calling for a “culture free of cancellation, free of censorship, free of the marginalisation of those who wish to challenge the current consensus” only last month. But this week we also learnt that civil servants in his department are currently preparing documents which seek to outlaw “extremism” — apparently defined, worryingly broadly, as “the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values”. It’s hard not to suspect that Gove only supports challenging “the consensus” when it isn’t “UK institutions and values” being brought into question.
Of course, Conservatives are not the only ones who seem to have trouble recognising violations of free speech, when the threatened speech in question advances views they dislike. For years now, Labour shadow ministers and MPs have watched, apparently untroubled, as ordinary women have undeservedly lost jobs, reputations, and Labour Party memberships for defending sex-based rights over spurious claims about gender identity. They have even refused to allow Labour gender-critical groups a presence at party conference.
The party’s more recent pivot towards distinguishing biological sex from gender identity has been welcome but still there is some way to go. In the past few weeks, under the guise of banning what is tendentiously described as “conversion therapy” for trans people, prominent Labour politicians including Annaliese Dodds and Angela Eagle have reiterated their party’s apparent desire to criminalise those who would disagree with a trans person that they have been “born in the wrong body”, or with their perceived need for life-altering surgery and drugs. This potentially includes concerned therapists and parents wishing to exercise freedom of conscience. But if this isn’t compelled speech, then what is?
There’s a tendency in any volatile historical moment to present defenders of free speech as morally weak. The Left tends to present them as covertly siding with bigoted oppressors, while the Right frames them as secretly on the side of extremists wishing to destroy British values. But the whole point of valuing free speech in its own right is that you do so even when you virulently disagree with the ideas, politics, and morals of those whose rights you are upholding. Otherwise you are just selectively and adventitiously point-scoring.
Ironically, a belief in the need for freedom of speech and assembly is in itself a British value. It is part of what distinguishes the UK from authoritarian and tyrannical regimes abroad. It takes personal strength, not weakness, to continue to stand up for such things in light of insults and misrepresentations. And if either Right or Left-wing politicians want to get rid of our basic freedoms in these areas, then they should not seek to do so by banning and criminalising.
Instead, they should pursue the only acceptable means available in a supposedly democratic country like ours: put the matter up for free public discussion and allow us to express our feelings peacefully about it.
