Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can free speech survive Keir Starmer? - From ‘banter bouncers’ in pubs to Islamic blasphemy codes, state censorship is set to explode in 2025.
Spiked ^ | 30 Dec, 2024 | Toby Young

Posted on 01/01/2025 6:56:36 AM PST by MtnClimber

As a free-speech campaigner, I was deeply alarmed by the prospect of a Labour government. But it turns out, I wasn’t nearly worried enough.

The unrelenting assault on this essential human right since Sir Keir Starmer entered Downing Street in July has shocked even the most jaundiced of observers. Who could have predicted this time last year that scores of people would be prosecuted for offensive speech on social media following a brutal knife attack? That two police officers would turn up at the door of an award-winning journalist on Remembrance Sunday to interview her about a year-old tweet that she’d deleted within hours? That Britain’s record on freedom of expression would be so bad that it has turned us into a global laughing stock? All of which means that when speculating about what will become of free speech in 2025, we should assume the worst.

Let’s start with the threats already in the pipeline. The Employment Rights Bill, which will almost certainly receive royal assent next year, contains a clause that will extend employers’ liability under the Equality Act to third-party harassment – ie, the harassment of employees by customers and the like. That means that owners of pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, sports stadia, concert venues, etc, will have a legal obligation to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to protect their employees from ‘harassment’ by anyone they come into contact with in the course of doing their jobs.

When you bear in mind that under the Equality Act ‘harassment’ includes overheard conversations that might upset or offend someone with a protected characteristic, the implications of this are deeply sinister. Pubs will have to employ ‘banter bouncers’ to police the conversations of customers to make sure no one is saying anything risqué that could be overheard by a member of staff. Hotels will have to stop anyone entering the lobby wearing a ‘Woman: Adult Human Female’ t-shirt. Football clubs will have to ban anyone who shouts ‘Are you blind?’ at a linesman, in case they’re overheard by a partially sighted steward. In short, the chilling effect that the Equality Act has had on workplaces, in which everyone is constantly looking over their shoulder to make sure they’re not overheard, will be extended to every area of our lives.

Then there’s the Football Governance Bill, another piece of legislation bound to go through next year. It includes several clauses that will require football clubs to promote equality, diversity and inclusion even more aggressively than they do at present. When you consider that Newcastle FC has already given a gender-critical feminist a two-season ban for saying on X that she doesn’t think transwomen are women, the mind boggles.

We already have Kick It Out and Rainbow Laces. Stonewall hovers over every boardroom in the Premier League. Not long ago, footballers would religiously take the knee before each match. Does the Labour government want fans to produce a certificate proving they’ve had unconscious-bias training before being allowed into a stadium? In future, when visiting fans at the Emirates chant ‘Is this a library?’, Arsenal supporters will be able to point to Sir Keir in his executive box and then put their fingers to their lips. If Starmer has his way, every stadium in the country will be a library.

Labour also promised a ‘full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices’ in its manifesto and it’s a racing certainty that this will happen in 2025 as well. What does that mean, given that what’s commonly thought of as ‘conversion therapy’ is already illegal in Britain and, in any event, all but disappeared about 25 years ago? The answer is that Labour wants to criminalise parents and health professionals who deviate in any way from the ‘gender-affirming care’ approach, whereby any adolescent suffering from gender confusion is encouraged to embark on an irreversible medical pathway rather than pause and reflect, or undergo a course of psychotherapy....SNIP


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: britain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: MtnClimber

Trump’s elections and his stated policies (which hopefully he will keep) will make for a stark contrast with what’s going on in the insane “woke” countries around the world (Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) and hopefully will wake up the rest of the world as to which system is better.

Today the fight is no longer between communism and capitalism, it’s between sanity and insanity.

And I’m sure that sooner than later reality (sanity) will get its revenge!


21 posted on 01/01/2025 8:50:20 AM PST by aquila48 (Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they. control you. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

“The answer is that Labour wants to criminalise parents and health professionals who deviate in any way from the ‘gender-affirming care’ approach,”

That’s already the case here in California!

The question that keeps recurring to me is this - how have such a small minority of delusionals managed to gain so much power as to compel by law their delusions on everyone?


22 posted on 01/01/2025 8:58:08 AM PST by aquila48 (Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they. control you. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

That pedulum could take 4 years to swing. I don’t see a successful no confidence vote given the parliamentary numbers that exist now.


23 posted on 01/01/2025 8:58:35 AM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Several notes: (1) Get a haircut, you look like King Crusty the Clown.

(2) In “Central” Europe? Does the UK consider the former Soviet Union to be “Central”? Ukraine is the easternmost nation that is entirely in Europe.

(3) I’ve always worried that the monarchs of England identify their own city as the New Jerusalem and by doing so deify themselves (see King Henry VIII). And he moves on to suggest that loving people means indulging their false belief rather than merely tolerating them. But aside from that, his Christ-in-Christmas message is present and solid: “As the famous Christmas Carol, ‘Once in Royal David’s City’ reminds us, ‘Our Saviour holy’ ‘came down to Earth from Heaven’, lived among ‘the poor and mean and lowly’ and transformed the lives of those he met, through God’s ‘redeeming love’.”


24 posted on 01/01/2025 9:02:23 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

You may be correct. But I’m not sure the UK can recover if it takes 4 years for the pendulum to swing.


25 posted on 01/01/2025 9:04:59 AM PST by RoosterRedux (Emerson paraphrased, "If you strike at the king, don't fail." The Democrats failed. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“ Starmtrooper lacks a mandate in the most fundamental way; he governs only because the opposition was deeply divided in first-past-the-post elections. He won an utterly enormous parliamentary majority with only 33% of the vote, and his party’s support is already down massively since then.”

We had an election like that in 1860. Lincoln won with only 39.7% of the vote, taking only the North, with the South being divided into three parties.

The Civil War started shortly afterwards.


26 posted on 01/01/2025 9:51:57 AM PST by SauronOfMordor (Either you will rule. Or you will be ruled. There is no other choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bgill

The King’s address started out with Bible verses and quickly moved to diversity and you gotta love all the hordes. Yeah it was quite a christmas treat.


27 posted on 01/01/2025 9:59:53 AM PST by Strict9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I like Reagan’s better. I don’t remember it word for word, so I’ll use your version’s set-up:

He also said something along these lines:

US reporter: In the US we have free speech anyone can call the President a total idiot without fear of punishment.

Russian person on the street: We have that here in the USSR. Anyone can call the US president a total idiot with out fear of punishment.

28 posted on 01/01/2025 10:12:24 AM PST by usurper (AI was born with a birth defect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

The UK is gone. Wokeness has crippled it, but middle-eastern followers of the death cult will deal the UK’s final blow.


29 posted on 01/01/2025 12:09:51 PM PST by I want the USA back (Voltaire: To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

Wow, I’m talking about British politics, and you manage to find a way to shoehorn loser-insurrectionist whining from the 1860s? Or am I misreading you?

And what argument exactly are you making? That whenever multiple parties prevent a majority, you can just go on a rampage and kill a few hundred thousand people to defend your right to enslave and brutalize millions of people?

My entire point was that Starmer didn’t have a mandate; Lincoln is to this day slandered as NOT having been anti-slavery ENOUGH precisely because he didn’t think he had a mandate to ban slavery.


30 posted on 01/01/2025 1:44:42 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Starmer is so loathed that I think he will be removed before long.

He will stay in power until 2029. The only way he steps down if King Charles or Prince William demands him to resign. That won't happen because they won't get involved.

31 posted on 01/01/2025 1:48:24 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

They still have the “reserved royal powers” to dismiss the government. They won’t use them. One could say this situation is why those powers still exist.


32 posted on 01/01/2025 1:52:09 PM PST by Reily (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Reily
They still have the “reserved royal powers” to dismiss the government. They won’t use them. One could say this situation is why those powers still exist.

Elizabeth II was probably the last Monarch who was willing to do that. The current Royal Family is a bunch of actors and they don't really believe in the institution.

33 posted on 01/01/2025 1:59:23 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

You are likely right!


34 posted on 01/01/2025 2:03:10 PM PST by Reily (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

That’s your opinion. I think it is wrong.


35 posted on 01/01/2025 2:36:48 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Emerson paraphrased, "If you strike at the king, don't fail." The Democrats failed. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Here's a list of modern PMs removed from office for reason other than being voted out:
These examples illustrate that prime ministers can be forced to leave office due to party dynamics, loss of parliamentary confidence, health reasons, or other exceptional circumstances without being directly voted out in a general election.
36 posted on 01/01/2025 2:46:09 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Emerson paraphrased, "If you strike at the king, don't fail." The Democrats failed. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Just my humble opinion, of course, but Starmer is an abject Woke loser who will go the way of Kamala Harris on this side of the pond.


37 posted on 01/01/2025 2:48:18 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Emerson paraphrased, "If you strike at the king, don't fail." The Democrats failed. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Just my humble opinion, of course, but Starmer is an abject Woke loser who will go the way of Kamala Harris on this side of the pond.

Interesting, all the PMs you've pointed out were Conservative except for Tony Blair. Blair was well-known for his "Third Way" politics, he wasn't a traditional Labour Party Politician.

38 posted on 01/01/2025 2:56:03 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

And?


39 posted on 01/01/2025 3:02:10 PM PST by RoosterRedux (Emerson paraphrased, "If you strike at the king, don't fail." The Democrats failed. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Conservatives are less likely to support their PM in a crisis.


40 posted on 01/01/2025 3:03:10 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson