Free speech

I’ve spent the last few days composing a response to the government’s consultation on whether to introduce a statutory minimum age for sites like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The consultation, announced on 19 January, was intended to spike the guns of Lord Nash, a Conservative peer who’d proposed an amendment to the Schools Bill banning under-16s from social media. It didn’t work and his amendment was carried two days later, although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after the government tabled its own amendment pledging to impose some kind of ban regardless.

At the time of writing, I haven’t seen the King’s Speech, but it’s a safe bet it will include a bill to enable wayward peers to be stripped of their titles. The point, of course, is so that Keir Starmer, if he’s still PM by then, can show us just how much he loathes Peter Mandelson. It’s the equivalent of Loyalists after the Restoration exhuming Cromwell’s corpse so they could ‘execute’ him and stick his head on a spike in Westminster Hall. But because Mandelson hasn’t been found guilty of a crime – and is unlikely to be – the bar for removing a title will have to be quite low. It will inevitably be some version of ‘bringing the Lords into disrepute’.

On Monday, the Communities Secretary Steve Reed rose in the House of Commons to unveil ‘Protecting What Matters’, the government’s new ‘action plan’ to ‘strengthen social cohesion’ and ‘tackle division’. According to the accompanying press release: ‘Millions of families, friends and neighbours will feel a stronger sense of community, unity and national pride thanks to renewed efforts to stamp out extremism, hate and division announced today.’ I was not among those millions. Conspicuous by omission in the announcement was any mention of Islamism.

Good God, there’s a lot of guff being talked about the Online Safety Act. This was a piece of legislation passed by the previous government to make the UK ‘the safest place in the world to go online’. To free speech advocates like me, that sounded ominous, given that ‘safety’ is always invoked by authoritarian regimes to clamp down on free speech. But after we raised the alarm, the government stripped out the most draconian clauses and put in some protections for freedom of expression, so even though it’s bad, it’s not quite as awful as it could have been. What about the BBC, which got several things wrong in its reporting of an explosion in the car park of Gaza’s al-Ahli hospital? Step forward Sir Keir Starmer.

I’m just coming to the end of a four-week speaking tour Down Under and have spotted some worrying signs of what our new government might have in store for us, particularly on the free speech front. During its six years in power, the Labour party in New Zealand tried to criminalise ‘hate speech’ against minority groups, and Australia’s Labor government has announced it will bring forward legislation to strengthen laws against speech that incites hatred in relation to race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Will Keir Starmer do likewise? In England and Wales, it’s already a criminal offence to stir up hatred on the basis of a person’s race, religion or sexual orientation, although Nicola Sturgeon went further.