Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill — 12 Jul 2021 at 21:39

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, notwithstanding the need to ensure legal protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom, because the Bill is a hate speech protection bill which could provide legal protection and financial recompense to those seeking to engage in harmful and dangerous speech on university campuses, including Holocaust denial, racism, and anti-vaccination messages.”
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
“I may detest what you say”-
“but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
“bold investments and reforms to build a high quality, unified system.”
“introducing a Lifelong Loan Entitlement from 2025”,
“Academic freedom specifically refers to the freedom of all members of universities…to pursue whatever lines of enquiry they decide, in research, teaching and public engagement, without fear or favour.”
“There really is no point me trying for an academic career with my political and religious views.”
“If you’re seeking a career in academia, expunge all mention of your faith or Church membership from your CV or social media to avoid difficulties which these could cause in your job chances.”
“A number of factors are limiting free speech”
“within their field of expertise.”
“we were very explicit-each of us-in describing exactly what had happened…this was not consensual and I want something to be done about that.”
“were advised that the process of pursuing any form of disciplinary action would not be worth the emotional toll it would take on us.”
“I totally get it, I thought we had sorted it out the last time but we clearly haven’t…It’s a very toxic combination of alcohol and very young athletes at university, it doesn’t work at all.”
“This university is not very good on these student welfare-type issues.”
“a clear…view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them and a force in urging them”,
“Universities should not only welcome debate and dissent from established ways of thinking-they should actively encourage it, because that’s how we achieve progress and change. If universities were only to allow the regurgitation of the received wisdom, what would be the point of them?”
“They had absolutely no desire to influence me or debate with me. I was an enemy, not an opponent, and so I should not have dared to be there. My actual existence infuriated them”.
“the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism…or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought”-
“may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions”.
“Freedom of expression is a key part of the higher education experience. Sharing ideas”
“is crucial for learning, and allows students to think critically, challenge and engage with different perspectives.”
“should encourage discussion and exchange of views on difficult and controversial”
“never in more than 25 years of going to political meetings have I felt the intimidation that I felt then.”
“the chilling effect…of unacceptable silencing and censoring”,
“leave their personal politics at home”,
“within the law and within their field of expertise”.
“and within their field of expertise”
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
“those who are being dragged to the pyre are…in most cases, lifelong left-leaning, open minded, educated and tolerant women, often with a history of supporting minority groups”.
“The biggest threat to free speech on university campuses is not student societies’ no-platform policies. It’s the Tory Hate Speech Bill, back in Parliament today, which threatens student societies’ freedom to choose who speaks at their events & their ability to protect students.”
“I wholly disapprove of what you say-and I will defend to the death your right to say it”-
“no evidence of a free speech crisis on campus”
“no wholesale censorship of debate”,
“a very nasty anti-white tract”.
“How can they claim they want to fulfil their moral duty to protect all members, which includes Jewish students, when this motion clearly disregards the wants and needs of Jewish students?”
“get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens.”
“no evidence of free speech being systematically suppressed”.
“Our experience to date is that providers are working hard to be compliant with their duty under section 43 of the 1986 Education Act.”
“take such steps as are reasonably practicable”
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence.”
“Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
“Freedom of expression is central to the health of a democratic society. It allows us to seek truth and object to injustice. Without free speech, a society effectively closes the door to the exchange of ideas that can lead to positive change. So we need to be vigilant to protect this vital freedom for future generations.”
“such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”
“within their field of expertise”.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con357 (+2 tell) 0098.6%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 196 (+2 tell)098.0%
LDem0 110100.0%
PC0 30100.0%
SNP0 102.1%
Total:363 214090.8%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive