Alison Atack

Another deeply troubling move from this increasingly authoritarian government. The Labour Party has removed the whip from Karl Turner — one of the most outspoken critics of plans to restrict our long-standing right to trial by jury. The Chief Whip didn’t even have the decency to tell him in-person. Instead, the decision was briefed to the press and followed up with an email citing his remarks and conduct. Apparently, speaking forcefully in defence of fundamental liberties is now a problem. Meanwhile, Lammy presses ahead with his sinister proposal restrict our right to trial by jury — despite having no manifesto mandate. He also continues to ignore the serious warnings from the country’s most senior legal figures. Whatever your politics, the right to a fair trial by jury is a cornerstone of our system. This Government is a disgrace. Credit to @KarlTurnerMP for taking a stand.

🚨📣 New FSU Member Testimonial Polly Clark is a novelist and TS Eliot Prize–shortlisted poet who recently published Afterlife: New and Selected Poems. Before publication, Polly was informed by her publicist that Gutter Magazine had selected her book as its ‘Book of the Month’, describing it as ‘funny, feminine and violent; confessional yet mysterious’. The review was initially published but disappeared after a few days. When pressed on why it had been removed, Gutter said: ‘A reader drew our attention to social media posts by Polly Clark that they considered to be offensive.’ Gutter added that it is a ‘welcoming publishing space’, including for trans writers and that, by promoting Ms Clark, it ‘risked undermining this goal’. Ms Clark has raised the issue with both Gutter and Creative Scotland — the body that provides funding to the magazine — but neither has agreed to reinstate the review or address its removal. Gutter has described this as an ‘editorial decision’, while Creative Scotland has stated that it ‘does not play a regulatory role’ in relation to the organisations it funds. Far too often, writers are censored because someone has taken offence at their work. In this case, it is almost certainly due to Ms Clark’s gender-critical views — which are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last April. The Free Speech Union and Freedom in the Arts are supporting Polly and have helped her submit a Subject Access Request (SAR), as well as draft complaint emails to Creative Scotland. We are awaiting the SAR results. Watch Polly below 👇

Leading lawyer who has represented wrongly convicted sub-postmasters quits over David Lammy’s ‘tyrannical’ jury reforms. Flora Page KC has resigned from her role at the legal services watchdog in protest against Lammy’s sinister plan to curb our ancient right to jury trials. She has said that the government’s plan would “rip the heart out” of the rule of law and that she will now focus her efforts on campaigning against these reforms. Flora has also taken aim at the Prime Minister for sanctioning the “act of tyranny”, which she describes as “a sign that this government has completely lost its way”. She also criticised the Justice Secretary and Courts Minister Sarah Sackman for “hijacking the suffering of victims” by arguing that the reforms are necessary to deliver justice for victims of crime. We all know Lammy’s plan won’t work. The Institute for Government has shown that his plan would save only 2 per cent of Crown Court time — not the 20 per cent he promised. This is an authoritarian government hellbent on taking away our liberties. How many more leading figures in the law have to tell the government this is a bad idea? Get a grip @DavidLammy. Read more below 👇

📣🚨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 notion that Britain — the birthplace of free speech— could produce its first free speech refugee is a damning indictment of @Keir_Starmer’s government”. If the Crown Prosecution Service gets its way, Britain is on course for an Islamic blasphemy law via the back door. Hamit Coskun set fire to a Quran outside the Turkish consulate and was violently attacked by a religious fanatic — Moussa Kadri — brandishing a knife. In two-tier Britain, it was Hamit who was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence, while the man wielding a knife on the streets of London was spared jail. Hamit’s conviction was overturned last October by Mr Justice Bennathan, who recognised that his actions may have offended many Muslims, but that the right to freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.” The CPS was not content to leave it there and has appealed to have his acquittal overturned. If the CPS wins, it will give the green light to religious fanatics to violently enforce an Islamic blasphemy code on the streets of Britain — with the nod of the CPS. Hamit has said he will be left with no option but to flee to the US. Parliament abolished blasphemy laws 18 years ago because they were incompatible with a free society. Beliefs — religious or otherwise — should not be shielded from insult or challenge. Yet even if the CPS loses, a blasphemy law is set to arrive in the form of the Government’s official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility”, drafted by a working group of five members, all with ties to Islamist organisations. It is important to ask whether the CPS would even bat an eyelid if someone torched a copy of the Bible outside the Vatican embassy in London. FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson has written for @ConHome👇