The Free Speech Union
@SpeechUnion • 220,289 subscribers
A mass membership organisation dedicated to upholding free speech. To join, go to https://t.co/w67y4KlzV6. Membership fees start at £4.99 a month
Shorts
Videos
🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Animal rights campaigner, Anneka Svenska, was visited at home by two police officers and told to accept a police record, attend an “online thinking” course, or face arrest following comments she made on social media about the incineration of beagles at a company that breeds the dogs for use in medical research. The police alleged that she had committed a crime under the Online Safety Act. Anneka refused to accept this “community resolution disposal”, which would have remained on her police record, and, after she engaged a lawyer, the case has now been dropped. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act was introduced by the last Conservative Government and made it a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison, to knowingly spread false information likely to cause harm. While the Bill was going through Parliament, the FSU warned it might be weaponised in this way to silence legitimate political speech. Anneka doesn’t believe the information she spread about the company was false. In fact, she has documentary evidence which she says substantiates her claims. Until the Online Safety Act was passed, the company unhappy about comments like this would have had to bring a defamation claim in the civil courts. Now, it seems, hurty words online can quickly become a police matter – and it seems that companies are now making criminal complaints as part of their brand protection strategies. If you are visited by the police for a speech matter, we’d urge you to take specialist legal advice before accepting any form of caution or submitting to a re-education course. Members of the Free Speech Union can ask for our help if they find themselves in a similar situation.
The Free Speech Union785,537 views • 9 days ago
The Government Office for Science has commissioned a report that should concern us all. It is framed as a document designed to help tackle the spread of “misinformation”, but what it really seeks to achieve is the neutralisation of independent thought. The report’s Orwellian proposals include “psychological inoculation”, “pre-bunking” and game-based “interventions” designed to steer the public towards state-approved political messages. It’s truly sinister. Full episode with Lord Young and Andrew Doyle is available on the FSU YouTube channel 👇
The Free Speech Union75,634 views • 2 days ago
📣🚨 METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFER UNRESERVED APOLOGY TO GRAHAM LINEHAN AND PAY HIM £25,000 The Metropolitan Police have at long last offered an unreserved apology to Graham Linehan and paid him £25,000. Last September, the Irish comedian and co-creator of Father Ted was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow Airport. His crime? Three gender-critical posts on X. He was arrested, taken to a police station and questioned for several hours. In the early hours of the following morning, he was rushed to hospital after his blood pressure rose to dangerously high levels. The Free Speech Union is proud to have supported Graham in taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and breaches of his free speech rights. General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, has said: “I’m beginning to lose count of the number of cases we’ve fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest. “At some point you’d think the penny would drop: police our streets, not our tweets.” While we welcome the Metropolitan Police’s apology and compensation payout to Graham Linehan, this should never have happened in the first place. It is high time the police focused on our streets, not our tweets. Watch Graham’s reaction below 👇
The Free Speech Union1,038,929 views • 1 month ago
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: An American cancer patient and Trump supporter was confronted by British police and told to apologise for her online posts or face an investigation. Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, was visited at her home in June by an officer from Thames Valley Police. He told her someone had lodged a complaint about her social media posts. She told him she was an American citizen and a member of the Free Speech Union and he should be investigating burglaries and rapes, not hurty words on social media. Chillingly, he told her he was there to get her to apologise to the person who was offended by her posts. If she refused, she’d be questioned down at the station. What was Deborah’s supposed crime? The policeman didn’t tell her. Was it her passionate support of President Trump and the MAGA movement on her Facebook and X pages? To make it worse, Deborah is in the midst of cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. She ought to be have been convalescing. Instead, she was harassed for her tweets. The FSU took on her case and, as a result, the police have now dropped their investigation. But they still haven’t told Deborah which of her posts got her into trouble, claiming they’ve accidentally deleted the record of the complaint. Thames Valley Police are responsible for guarding President Trump this week. What would he make of the fact that those same officers are visiting the homes of his supporters – including US citizens – and threatening them with arrest.
The Free Speech Union6,443,977 views • 10 months ago
We can’t say we’re shocked that Andy Burnham has sacked Bridget Phillipson as Education Secretary. One of her first acts as Secretary of State was to torpedo the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA) — arguably the most consequential piece of free speech legislation in the past 15 years. She reversed the commencement orders that would have brought the Act’s most important provisions into force, including the vital complaints scheme. Rather than asking Parliament to do so, she bypassed it through ministerial fiat. The Free Speech Union challenged this in the High Court on two grounds: first, that it breached the sacrosanct constitutional principle that a minister cannot defy the will of Parliament; and second, that she had failed to carry out an adequate impact assessment. Days before the case was due to be heard, Bridget Phillipson partially U-turned, announcing that she would commence most of the key provisions — and she duly did. We then became embroiled in a long-standing dispute over who had won the case. That mattered because it determined who would pay the legal costs. The High Court decided that the Free Speech Union had won and ordered the Government to pay our costs. Importantly, when Phillipson announced her partial U-turn, the Free Speech Union offered to settle if the Government paid £80,000 — around a quarter of our total legal costs. Pretty fair, no? Well, the Government refused. The Free Speech Union believes this was because Phillipson did not want to admit she had reversed course. The High Court has now ordered the Government to pay all of our costs. Bridget Phillipson’s hubris has cost taxpayers around £200,000. Combined with the Government’s own legal costs, the total bill exceeds £500,000. That also means we now have the resources to challenge Phillipson’s successor, Lucy Powell, should she attempt to reverse any of the commencement orders that bring HEFSA into force — including the much-needed complaints scheme for academics, university staff and visiting speakers, which is due to come into force on 1 September. Hear from The Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young of Acton 👇
The Free Speech Union161,478 views • 19 days ago
The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him. Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe. The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments. While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead. Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions. Police Scotland has a poor record when it comes to recognising citizens’ rights to free speech. If Heather has been charged with a speech offence, the Free Speech Union is here to help. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw 👇
The Free Speech Union186,681 views • 23 days ago
📣🚨 FSU Victory!! The Free Speech Union has just heard from South Wales Police that it has withdrawn its guidance on “anti-Muslim hostility”. The force had effectively adopted its own Islamic blasphemy law, instructing officers to record any conversation that went beyond “legitimate” discussion of Islam. Under this guidance, criticism of Islam could have been recorded as an anti-social behaviour incident and potentially appeared on DBS checks, affecting someone’s ability to work as a teacher, carer, or in other regulated professions. South Wales Police has backed down because the Free Speech Union threatened them with a judicial review if it chose to press ahead with the policy. The force has described this move as a “pause” to the guidance — but we think it is highly unlikely to return. We must also thank Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho for referring South Wales Police to the Equality and Human Rights Commission after we brought this issue to her attention. Blasphemy laws were abolished by Parliament 18 years ago. We must not allow them to return through the back door. Let this be a warning to any other public body — particularly police forces — considering the adoption of its own blasphemy laws. Watch Lord Young below 👇
The Free Speech Union342,585 views • 2 months ago
Matthew Wright proves our point on LBC this morning. The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — is already silencing legitimate debate and criticism of Islam and its practices. It amounts to a de facto Muslim blasphemy law. The treatment of Nick Timothy by Labour MPs is deeply sinister. The Shadow Justice Secretary criticised mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square, was reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded “Islamophobic”, and faced calls to resign from Labour MPs and even the Prime Minister. This morning, FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw was invited on to discuss the comments made by Nick Timothy. Matthew Wright didn’t want to hear it. After the interview, he told another guest he had “closed her down” because she was “putting out anti-Muslim hatred”. Farcical. In a crowded field, Matthew is this week’s runner up as for chief enforcer of the blasphemy law this week. 👏
The Free Speech Union787,867 views • 4 months ago
📺 Watch this video to find out about our latest case — it's arguably our biggest yet. ⚽️ If you're a fan of a Premier League team, and you've ever expressed lawful but non-woke views on social media, please CLICK the link to use our new, automatic form to submit a subject access request, both to your Premier League club and to the Premier League itself. 🤐 If you find out they have been keeping tabs on your political views, let us know and it will help us put a stop to this flagrant interference in free speech.
The Free Speech Union3,037,183 views • 2 years ago
📣🚨GRAHAM LINEHAN ACQUITTED OF CRIMINAL DAMAGE “The decision of the Court to throw out this case , is very welcome – but this case should never have got to court. There has been a troubling pattern of police forces around the country to ‘believe’ trans-rights activists, time and time again, even when there has been overwhelming evidence that complaints have been made against gender critical campaigners, in bad faith. The police have failed in their duty to properly and fairly investigate – preferring instead to support one side over the other in a debate. All this has done is erode the faith the public should be able to have in the police. We are sick of two tier policing and I hope with today’s verdict it will end. I have suffered greatly in my fight to protect women and children from what I believe to be a dangerous ideology. But I am proud that I have never given in and I will not do. I have been lifted through support from friends and strangers, from women’s rights groups to London cabbies who have taken the time to stop and shake my hand. I am very grateful to my legal team; Daniel Berke and Sarah Vine KC and to the team at the Free Speech Union”.
The Free Speech Union264,698 views • 3 months ago
📣🚨The Free Speech Union is mounting a legal challenge against the Government over its official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as 'anti-Muslim hatred' — and its appointment of a new 'tsar' to punish people who fall foul of it. This amounts to a Muslim blasphemy law via the back door. The definition is vague and subjective, and will be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism and debate about Islam, Muslims, and Islamic practices and history. The FSU’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, said: “This is the most serious threat to free speech the Government has come up with so far — the only area in which it’s achieving any success. “If we don’t win this fight, tens of thousands of people a year could lose their jobs at the say-so of a Labour-appointed ‘tsar’. It’s dystopian.” Public bodies will adopt this definition — despite it being non-statutory — with the same zeal the police have shown in investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). It is predicted by one of the drafters of the definition that it could lead to around 20,000 reports of 'anti-Muslim hostility' a year. At present, the number of recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes is around 4,000. In a free society, no religion should be shielded from legitimate criticism. This proposal places one faith above the rest. The Free Speech Union is bringing a legal challenge on two grounds. First, the definition relies on nebulous, legally undefined terms such as “negative and prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”, making it incoherent and irrational — and ripe for weaponisation. Second, adopting such a definition cuts across legislation already enacted by Parliament and therefore breaches the public law principle known as “occupying the field”. Under this established public law doctrine, new regulations, put in place by ministers, must not replace existing legislation. It is constitutionally unlawful. In this case, the body responsible for protecting Muslims from discrimination is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not an anti-Muslim hostility 'tsar'. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 18 years ago. We can't let this Government resurrect them via the back door. This is one of the biggest battles the Free Speech Union has ever taken on in its six years — and we need your help. Judicial reviews are expensive, but this is a fight we felt we had to take on. Donate to our crowdfunder below👇
The Free Speech Union352,315 views • 5 months ago
📣🚨Karen Webb, an NHS specialist nurse with 42 years’ experience working with older people, faced losing her honorary Queen’s Nurse title after being reported for gender-critical posts on X. The situation began during what should have been a standard team meeting. In the informal chat before proceedings began, Karen, in response to another colleague, expressed support for the Olympic Committee’s decision to exclude male athletes from women’s sporting categories. Within minutes, she received a private message from the Trust’s Head of Equality and Inclusion, informing her that she had “upset a lot of people”. The following day, she was told that her “attitude” towards transgender individuals needed to be discussed. Three months later, Karen was called to a formal meeting with senior figures at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, where she was questioned about her views on trans people and her ability to provide them with compassionate care. Believing the matter to have been resolved, Karen was then contacted by the Queen’s Institute of Community Nursing (QICN), which informed her that it had received a complaint about alleged “transphobia” and “bigotry”. She was instructed to delete her social media posts or risk losing her honorary title. The experience caused her significant and understandable distress. At that point, Karen turned to the Free Speech Union for support. The FSU wrote to QICN on her behalf, setting out her legally protected right to hold and express gender-critical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. Shortly thereafter, QICN dropped its investigation and issued a full apology, acknowledging that there was “no case to answer” and that Karen had “done nothing wrong”. Following a Subject Access Request (SAR), it emerged that the complaint had been made by a senior activist colleague, who had also disclosed information from a confidential internal process – despite that matter having been closed without any disciplinary action. This disclosure appeared to be a malicious attempt to damage Karen’s professional reputation and facilitate the removal of her honorary title. A subsequent grievance investigation by the NHS Trust upheld Karen’s complaint, finding that confidential information had been improperly shared with QICN. The Trust accepted that Karen had a reasonable expectation that discussions within the internal process would remain private, and confirmed that this expectation had been breached. The Trust has since stated that “appropriate action will be taken” to ensure lessons are learned and similar incidents do not occur again. Although the Free Speech Union was ultimately able to protect Karen’s title and prevent disciplinary action, the experience has left a lasting impact. Now retired, she reflects that the episode has cast a shadow over what should have been the culmination of a long and dedicated career in nursing. This sad episode resulted in Karen deciding it was time to retire. We are proud to have supported Karen during this difficult time. Cases like hers are far from isolated – more than 40 per cent of the Free Speech Union’s casework now involves individuals facing repercussions for expressing gender-critical beliefs, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Watch Karen share her story and join the Free Speech Union below 👇
The Free Speech Union288,662 views • 4 months ago
In the House of Lords this afternoon, our General Secretary Lord Young of Acton asked Baroness Lloyd of Effra how she reconciles the Government's plans to ban children from accessing platforms like X, Facebook and YouTube with the 'keep up' duties in s15 and s16 of the Online Safety Act – namely, the duties not to remove or restrict content of democratic importance or journalistic content? He pointed out that it's particularly important that access to that content isn't restricted for 16 and 17 year-olds, given that the Government is planning to lower the voting age to 16.
The Free Speech Union117,754 views • 1 month ago
When the Government announced its social media ban for under-16s, it published an indicative list of platforms that included Facebook, Instagram and X. BlueSky was nowhere to be seen. The Government has since rowed back, insisting that it was only an indicative list. We think it is more than a coincidence that these perceived centre-right platforms were included from the outset, while the left-leaning platform was omitted. In Australia, where this Government borrowed the idea for the ban, BlueSky was not on the list. In typical fashion, however, it has since volunteered to be included. Once Ofcom has finalised the regulations, we will have a clearer idea of what qualifies a platform for the ban. In the latest episode of the FSU Podcast, Lord Young argues that the initial decision not to include BlueSky points to something quite alarming: that this is a selective ban. The problem with a selective ban is whether Ofcom can genuinely be trusted to make politically impartial decisions that do not benefit the Government of the day. That concern is particularly pertinent at the moment, given that the Government is pushing through legislation to give 16-year-olds the vote. Watch the full episode of the FSU Podcast on the FSU YouTube channel 👇
The Free Speech Union59,663 views • 27 days ago
📣🚨CONVERSION THERAPY BAN PETITION The Government has announced it intends to press ahead with a ban on conversion therapy. Like most 'bans', this sounds benign. How could anyone not want to ban giving electric shocks to gay kids? But the fact is, that's already against the law, as are all the other coercive practices conjured up by the phrase 'conversion therapy'. So what is it the Government wants to ban, exactly? The answer is 'converting' children who think they're trans to being 'cisgendered'. That's where the impetus for this ban has come from — well-funded pro-trans lobby groups like Stonewall and Mermaids. So any parent who 'misgenders' their confused adolescent daughter, or tries to talk them out of embarking on an irreversible medical pathway, could face criminal charges for trying to 'convert' them. And we're not talking about out a slap on the wrist. In the state of Victoria, Australia, which brought in a conversion therapy ban in 2021, the maximum penalty for trying to 'convert' someone is 10 years in prison. It won't just be parents and medical professionals who will risk imprisonment for trying to talk gender-confused children out of mutilating themselves. Any religious leader who shares the teachings of their faith on issues like homosexuality and gay marriage, could also face prosecution. That's what this authoritarian Government wants to ban — any dissent from radical progressive orthodoxy when it comes to sex and gender. So please do sign our petition and let Andy Burnham know how you feel about this anti-free speech measure. Speech is always curtailed in the name of preventing 'harm'. But stopping parents talking honestly to their children about the risks of irreversible medical procedures will cause actual, real world harm. This is a fight we have to win. ✍️ Sign our petition below 👇
The Free Speech Union93,705 views • 1 month ago
What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇
The Free Speech Union62,061 views • 1 month ago
The Government has announced a Bill to ban conversion practices that is so poorly and broadly drafted that it could see parents, therapists and religious leaders locked up for up to five years if they engage in well-intentioned conversations with gender-confused children or dare to share their faith’s teachings on sex, gender and marriage. On this week’s episode of the FSU Podcast, FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw sits down with therapist James Esses. The Minister for Equalities, Olivia Bailey MP, claims the Bill will not stop parents and therapists from talking openly to children with identity issues. She says it only criminalises conversion practices that are abusive and cause serious harm. However, James Esses, who works with children who believe they are “trapped in the wrong body”, argues that the proposed new law puts him at risk of imprisonment. Watch the full episode below 👇
The Free Speech Union48,085 views • 25 days ago
The Government's official definition of Islamophobia is already having a chilling effect on free speech. South Wales Police went even further, instructing officers to record any incident that went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam. But why should a police officer get to decide what constitutes "illegitimate" discussion of a religion in a country without blasphemy laws? The Free Speech Union threatened South Wales Police with legal action unless it withdrew the guidance, and Claire Coutinho wrote to the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The force has now confirmed that it has paused the guidance. The Government's definition is a gold-embossed invitation for public bodies to go even further than ministers in stifling legitimate criticism and debate about Islam. As Claire tells FSU Director of Research and Policy David Rose, if an officer records an incident on the basis that your comments went beyond "legitimate" discussion of Islam, that could appear on an enhanced DBS check and potentially affect your employment prospects. That is effectively the reintroduction of non-crime hate incidents through the back door. There is no democratic mandate for this. Watch the full episode on the FSU YouTube channel 👇
The Free Speech Union53,866 views • 29 days ago
📣🚨 NEW FSU MEMBER TESTIMONIAL: Nick Buckley MBE Nick Buckley received an MBE for years of dedicated service to charity. He spent many years supporting young people across Greater Manchester and worked with homeless people for 15 years. He founded the charity Mancunian Way to tackle homelessness and help uncover child sexual exploitation. He has also stood as a parliamentary candidate. Last December, Mr Buckley received a letter from the Forfeiture Committee informing him that his MBE — awarded for his many years of service to the community — could be revoked because he had allegedly “brought the honours system into disrepute”. The Committee said this was due to a number of comments he had made on social media, which it considered to be “beyond political comment”, “racist” and “homophobic”. Mr Buckley was not informed that the Committee was meeting to consider removing his honour. However, when he was eventually given the opportunity to respond, he seized it. To defend his reputation and honour, Mr Buckley turned to the Free Speech Union for assistance. With the FSU’s help, he submitted detailed representations explaining why the Committee’s conclusions were flawed. In addition, the Free Speech Union’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, wrote to the Head of the Honours and Memorialisation Secretariats at the Cabinet Office. In his letter, Lord Young highlighted the inconsistencies in Mr Buckley’s case. He pointed out that the threshold for stripping someone of an honour is intentionally high. The Government’s guidance states that forfeiture is generally appropriate where someone: • has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to more than three months’ imprisonment; • has been censured or struck off by a relevant regulatory or professional body for conduct directly relevant to the award of the honour; • has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England and Wales), the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009; or • has been found, following a trial of the facts, to have committed a sexual offence listed in the legislation above. While many people may strongly disagree with Mr Buckley’s social media posts, it is clear that they came nowhere near meeting these criteria. His case raises broader questions about the consistent — or inconsistent — application of what constitutes bringing the honours system “into disrepute”. It appears Mr Buckley was singled out because of his views. The Committee has now written to Mr Buckley confirming that he can keep his honour. But this ordeal should never have happened. The Forfeiture Committee is a shadowy body operating within Whitehall. The Free Speech Union has dealt with a number of cases in which people who have devoted their lives to serving their communities have found their life’s work placed at risk because an obscure committee disapproved of their opinions or comments. The proposed Removal of Peerages Bill risks exacerbating this worrying trend. Time and again, we see those expressing mainstream concerns — such as about mass, uncontrolled migration — branded as “far-right” and becoming the target of vexatious complaints and therefore more likely to face punishment than those on the political left. The Forfeiture Committee and the Removal of Peerages Bill risk being weaponised to silence dissenting voices that do not conform to prevailing progressive orthodoxies. The Free Speech Union is proud to have been able to help Mr Buckley retain his honour. Watch Nick Buckley MBE’s testimonial below — and become a member of the Free Speech Union. 👇
The Free Speech Union23,647 views • 12 days ago
The official definition of Islamophobia — now repackaged as “anti-Muslim hostility” — will be used to suppress legitimate criticism of Islam and its practices. We are already seeing this play out. Less than a week after the Communities Secretary, Steve Reed, published the definition — assuring the public it would not stifle legitimate criticism of Islam — Nick Timothy is facing calls to resign after criticising mass ritual prayer by Muslims in Trafalgar Square. He has been accused of “anti-Muslim hostility” by a Labour MP and reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. This is a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door. Today, the Free Speech Union has sent a pre-action letter to Steve Reed, threatening judicial review if the definition and guidance are not withdrawn immediately. This is one of the biggest fights we’ve taken on in our six-year history. Help us stop the Government’s de facto Muslim blasphemy law 👇
The Free Speech Union214,998 views • 4 months ago