That’s Debatable!

The Free Speech Fates have woven a Greek thread through today’s episode, starting with the Olympic Games. A 33-page ‘Portrayal Guidelines’ document, published ahead of this summer’s Paris Games, states that a person’s sex is not assigned based on genetics alone. As reported by the Telegraph, the International Olympic Committee has been accused by Martina Navratilova of waging a 1984 version of war on women after asking journalists not to use terms such as “born male” or “biologically male” to describe transgender athletes. It argues that such labels are dehumanising and constitute “problematic language”. Despite the ferocious backlash, Yiannis Exarchos, chief executive of Olympic Broadcasting Services, promised that his team in Paris would use the guidelines as “our Bible”, and “we call on our colleagues across all media to embrace them”. Meanwhile, Greek philosophers are at risk of being scrubbed out of various study courses. A new toolkit for ‘decolonising’ philosophy in secondary schools and universities summarily dismisses canonical western philosophers from Plato and Aristotle through to Descartes and Wittgenstein as ‘dead white males’ who engaged in solipsistic “armchair theorising” and must now make way for more exciting and sophisticated voices from the ‘Global South’ (Mail, Times). The toolkit was drawn up by four undergraduate student interns, working alongside four academic philosophers at SOAS (formerly the School of Oriental and African Studies) in London. We end by discussing our fears around a new form of diversity training, namely ‘plus-size inclusivity training’. Our concerns appear to be shared by oncologist Professor Karol Sikora, who is quoted in the article, “Plus-size inclusivity training is just the sort of nonsense that the senior management in the NHS will make part of the ridiculous politically inspired mandatory training all doctors are forced to do. Please bring back some common sense!”. We couldn’t agree more. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

As reported in the Mail, Durham university last week postponed a debate on whether “Palestinian Leadership is the Biggest Barrier to Peace”. According to the article, a 'mob' of pro-Palestine protesters locked students inside a chamber for more than two hours and created a human chain around the building. Mohab Ramadan, a speaker for the opposition and founder of the university’s Israeli-Palestinian Resolution Society also received a hostile reception when he visited the protesters’ encampment. In response, he told them, “Granting yourself what you’re denying to others is shameful. To deny others the freedom to speak and debate when you yourself have encamped on Palace Green and been tolerated, allowed to speak and be heard by the entire University is unforgivable. I supported you and believed in your cause, arguing passionately for Palestine, but your actions have alienated the very people you seek to persuade”. Interestingly, Durham is at the top of the FSU’s league table of universities with the worst record of defending free speech - we’ve had to defend more students and staff from there than any other university in the UK. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that university staff in Exeter feel coerced to sign an anti-transphobia pledge. These calls to allyship are reminiscent of the ‘struggle sessions’ that were prevalent during China’s cultural revolution. We end with a tweet about King Alfred that causes us to revisit our discussion on the Anglo Saxons, this time in the context of so-called Queer Theory. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

The Free Speech Union has responded to the Office for Students’ (OfS) consultation on its proposed new guidance for English universities on how best to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus. Realistically, the OfS’s approach to freedom of speech is likely to be unpopular with universities and, as a result, could face legal challenge. Our response sets out why we think the OfS’s position is legally defensible and how it could be improved. We also discuss the University of Cambridge’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech, which we believe to be very positive - although the student magazine Varsity appeared less enthused. Sticking with the university world, an article in the Telegraph by an anonymous student caught our eye this week. When it comes to social media use, the writer observes that, “We aren’t posting online because we think we will have a clear impact. We’re doing it because of a huge moral impetus to speak out on issues - whether or not they concern us and whether or not we are familiar with them - and to be ‘right about them’”. The student continues, “The reward? A feedback loop of heart “reacts” and supportive comments, and endless approval in the form of retweets and likes”. In the follow-up discussion, Ben highlights three damaging experiments that have been carried out on our young people in recent years: trans ideology, lockdowns and smartphones. We finish with the new Appendix that we have added to our EDI Tax briefing paper. It runs through two egregious examples of EDI training, both highlighted to us by concerned FSU members. The first is a mandatory training course for any Amazon employees with supervisory responsibilities. It is produced by ‘Glamazon’, the company’s internal LGBT+ affinity group. The second is a guide produced by The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, a professional association, that’s intended for all speech and language therapists, as well as support workers and students. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

The first quarter of 2024 was the FSU’s busiest yet for free speech case work and we begin by reflecting on what insight this gives us into the state of cancel culture in the UK. Moving to the global scale, The Guardian last week revealed the headlines from Article 19’s Global Expression Report 2024. According to the analysis, more than half of the world’s population cannot speak freely. We dig into the statistics for the UK and focus on the troubling longer-term trends revealed by the analysis. Over the last ten years or so, the UK has fallen from the mid-range of the ‘open’ category to the bottom with a score of 81. But we are not alone. Article 19’s report reveals how over the last decade, 6.2 billion people across 78 countries experienced a deterioration of their freedom of expression while only 303 million people across 18 countries saw improvement. We end with an article published in Spiked by one of the FSU’s founding directors and Advisory Council member, Inaya Folarin Iman. She argues that instead of claiming that hate-speech laws are being weaponised against ethnic-minority Britons, outlets such as Channel 4 News ought to do more questioning of the need for hate-speech laws in the first place. As Inaya says in the article, “If you call for censorship of so-called hate speech, it will eventually be used against you”, before concluding that “the moral of the story is that we should do away with all hate-speech laws”. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Ben spoke at the launch of SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network) in Parliament last week and made the point that the FSU has handled over 700 cases relating to gender critical beliefs. It’s perhaps not surprising, therefore, that sex and gender feature in our first main item. The Telegraph reports how civil servant and FSU member Eleanor Frances is crowdfunding to pay for an employment tribunal against two government departments on several grounds, including indirect discrimination based on her philosophical beliefs. Jill Levene, FSU legal counsel, is quoted in the article, “Eleanor’s treatment is a clear example of a civil service that has been captured by radical progressive ideology”. This week, the FSU also helped out in the academic world. Senior administrators at Cardiff University decided a panel discussion on ‘Academic Freedom in the UK’ wasn’t an ‘internal’ event, leaving organisers scrambling to find £1,500 to pay for security and venue hire. We were able to step in via our Mactaggart Programme and stump up the cash so the event can go ahead. Next up, an article by Ed West in The Spectator caught our eye. It exposes the ongoing attempts to erase the Anglo-Saxons, which includes, for example, the renaming of the “International Society of Anglo-Saxonists” to the rather less evocative, “International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England”. Such tactics will be familiar to anyone au fait with the ambition of the ideologues to interpret our history through the dismal prism of “whiteness”, “privilege” and “decolonisation”. We end with the case of Professor Nana Sato-Rossberg and the refreshing news that we are allowed to make enthusiastic comments about a person’s country of origin. In reaching its conclusion, the Employment Tribunal panel said that it had “reminded itself” of the following passage from Justice Underhill’s ruling in Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336: “Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly if it should have been clear that any offence was unintended. Whilst it is very important that employers and tribunals are sensitive to the hurt that can be caused by offensive comments or conduct (which are related to protected characteristics)… it is also important not to encourage a culture of hypersensitivity or the imposition of legal liability in respect of every unfortunate phrase.” ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Today we take a slightly different tack and explore the 1999 film ‘The Matrix’, which imparts a deep well-spring of metaphors for describing cancel culture. In addition to being an action-packed blockbuster, the movie touches on philosophical ideas from such luminaries as Lewis Carroll, René Descartes, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Moving on to looming free speech battles, we were concerned to see Ali Milani, national chair of Labour Muslim Network, quoted in The Telegraph saying, “We have to show we are taking Islamophobia seriously, in legislation and in our own party structures”. This will ring alarm bells for all listeners familiar with the recent essay on Islamophobia penned by Tim Dieppe. We agree with Tim that if the proposed APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) definition were to find further purchase in government, it could rapidly lead to blasphemy law by the backdoor. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

FSU General Secretary, Toby Young, was nearly abducted last week by the infamous Hate Monster during a visit to Scotland. Video footage shows Toby finally triumphing over the beast, which he describes as “a cartoon creature that looks like a hairy pepperoni”. The Pepperoni of Hate would doubtless approve of VisitBritain’s latest language guide. As reported in the Mail and by the FSU’s Communications Officer, Freddie Attenborough, the flagship tourism agency has told workers that in order to foster a “culture of belonging”, they must not use words such as ‘blindspot’, ‘blackspot’, ‘man hours’ – even ‘powwow’. Such language is not sufficiently inclusive, apparently, alongside lots of other words and phrases that have been “used for generations”. Eagle-eyed readers will spot that Freddie has peppered his article with VisitBritain’s banned words, something of which we heartily approve. There’s good news and bad news in our final section as we discuss the new pronoun mandate issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in America and detailed in Unherd. More positively, the Telegraph reports that UK bosses are getting nervous about the corporate diversity drive and rowing back on some of its more extreme manifestations. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

We whizz through a couple of this week’s free speech headlines today before providing listeners with an update on Linzi Smith’s case against Newcastle United and the Premier League, a story which has now been picked up by the BBC. Linzi is crowdfunding to assist with her next legal stage under the relevant pre-action protocol. This is a David and Goliath situation as both organisations are well-funded and will have strong legal representation. Any listeners interested in contributing can find all the detail here. An interview of Billy Bragg in The Guardian caught our eye this week, particularly a couple of his comments towards the end of the piece, “My problem with people like Rowling, like Julie Bindel, is really who they are lined up with” and “[..] that’s what I see with Rowling and the others: they are on the wrong side of the table". We discuss how and why people in the culture war seem so keen to identify with their ‘tribe’ rather than the merits of the issue in hand – especially when that issue relates to free expression. We end with an update on the case of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen. She has already been tried and acquitted by two courts for publicly expressing her Christian beliefs but has now had her acquittal appealed to the country’s Supreme Court, with the prosecution continuing to call for a punitive fine. Executive Director of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Paul Coleman said: “This is a watershed case in the story of Europe’s creeping censorship. The state’s insistence on continuing this prosecution after almost five long years, despite such clear and unanimous rulings from the lower courts is alarming. The process is the punishment in such instances, resulting in a chill on free speech for all citizens observing.” ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Toby Young has written a sobering piece in this week’s Spectator, surveying speech-restricting laws in the works across the world, from Poland to Canada – the latter threatening to establish a form of speech precrime. While it is troubling to see how far free expression has dropped down the priority list of governments, Toby ends with a call to practical action, “I think the time has come to set up a Canadian Free Speech Union. If you’d like to help, email me on tobyyoung@freespeechunion.org”. Meanwhile back at FSU(UK) HQ, we’ve just had our busiest three months ever in terms of new free speech cases – more than 250. Our success rate remains steady at 74%, while the gender/transgender issue continues to dominate all that we do, accounting for 44% of the free speech cases reported to us so far in 2024. Moving on from facts and figures, an article by Ben Cobley in The Critic caught our eye this week, entitled “On conservative despair”. It presents quite a bleak picture of our cultural moment, but also equips us to understand the times and, as Ben says, sends us back to moments in history when there has been successful fight-back against unwelcome change. We end with a quick signpost to an article by Rachel Rosario Sánchez. She references our briefing note on the EDI Tax and underlines the point that “The Stasi-wannabees running EDI meetings demonstrate that acceptance cannot be compelled, least of all by the authoritarian bullies at the top”. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

One of our recurring bugbears is the imperious messaging that has seeped into all corners of British society, lecturing us on what to think and say as we go about our business. A current TV advertising campaign against ageism is a case in point. No-one wants people of different ages to be excluded from society, but it is rather galling to be slapped on the wrist for using harmless phrases like, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. It turns out that local authorities have also latched onto the re-education trend. As reported in The Telegraph, the FSU has been pushing back on councils that have started using PSPOs (Public Spaces Protection Orders) to police every aspect of our behaviour in public – including our speech. As Ben makes clear, we suspect this battle may prove to be a frustrating game of ‘whack-a-mole’ for a while yet. We briefly mention a recent exposé of the FSU's numerous successes in Byline Times before moving on to examine the Cass Review Final Report, which was published last week. Dr Hilary Cass explicitly addresses the toxicity of the ongoing gender debate in her Foreword, “There are few other areas of healthcare where professionals are so afraid to openly discuss their views, where people are vilified on social media, and where name-calling echoes the worst bullying behaviour. This must stop”. The mainstream media has taken proper notice of the Cass review and we ponder how much hope we can reasonably now pin on a change in the direction and tone of the discussion. We end today’s episode with a quick review of the findings from a poll commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. Among a list of rather depressing statistics is the finding that 52% of the British Muslims polled want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Muhammed. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

As Scotland’s Hate Crime and Public Order Act comes to the end of its first week, the number of ‘hate crimes’ reported to Police Scotland has ticked over the 8,000 mark. This was entirely predictable and no doubt reflects a combination of reporting by those keen to make use of the act’s censorious powers and mischievous attempts at exposing its almost comically authoritarian intent. What's also clear is how the new Act has quickly become a major distraction for Police Scotland, which needs to pay its officers overtime, handle the public relations fall out and continue to address ordinary crime. Having now welcomed nearly 1,000 new members to the Free Speech Union, we’ve set up a Hate Speech Hotline in case any of them get into trouble with the police about something they've said. We’ve also put an arrangement in place with Levy & McRea, a top firm of criminal lawyers in Scotland, so that if any of our members are arrested or interviewed under caution for something speech-related we can come to their aid. You can find the Hotline number, as well as detailed instructions about what to do if you’re arrested in Scotland for a speech-related offence in this set of FAQs, here. We move on to discuss a piece of research the FSU released in March entitled, “The EDI Tax: How Equity, Diversion and Inclusion is Hobbling British Businesses”. It was great to see our survey results reported in The Telegraph in an article that highlighted how nearly a quarter of employees going through EDI and/or climate training have been compelled to say things they don’t believe. The release of our report coincided with the publishing of the Inclusion at Work Panel’s recommendations, several of which alluded to problems akin to those uncovered in our survey. We end today with a discussion on Open Data, or rather the lack thereof. Writing in The Times, conservative MP for Harborough, Neil O’Brien, raises concerns that the failure of multiple government departments to publish granular migration data in the way that they used to is potentially frustrating an important debate. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

By the time this episode of ‘That’s Debatable!’ is released, the not-so-new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act will have come into force. We mark the occasion with a dive into an excellent piece by a concerned Scot, writing under the pseudonym C.J. Strachan. The article reaches back to 17th century Scottish history – the case of Thomas Aikenhead – and includes the powerful words that the 20 year-old wrote on the morning of his execution for blasphemy, “It is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure”. With all that has been going on, listeners will not be surprised to hear that we have seen a marked uptick in the number of new FSU members living north of the border. We take a few moments, therefore, to explain how we are configured to support our Scottish members, including an overview of the FSU’s Scotland Office. There is good news to mark in the case of Rachel Maclean MP where we assisted in the successful scrubbing of a Non-Crime Hate Incident (‘NCHI’) against her name. We continue to support Murdo Fraser MSP who is facing a similar battle in Scotland. We end with some April Fools' Day fun, while remaining all too aware of how truth and absurdity are now more difficult to distinguish than ever.   ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

It's the first birthday of ‘That’s Debatable!’. We hope listeners will indulge us as we take a moment at the beginning of today's episode to look back over one or two of the segments from the last twelve months that have particularly resonated. First up on today’s main menu, however, is the ‘Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act’, which will now be activated on April Fool’s Day, nearly three years after it first received Royal Assent. The law creates new stirring up of hatred offences for protected characteristics including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity. As Dr Stuart Waiton of Abertay University has reported in the Scottish Mail on Sunday, “From Section 4 of the Act itself, we find that saying something a ‘reasonable person’ would consider ‘insulting’ could be enough to see the long arm of the law reach into your living room”. He goes on to say, “What we are witnessing is a new type of authoritarianism – one that is clothed in the language of care and protection”. We continue with a discussion of Labour’s proposed Hate Crime Action Plan announced by Yvette Cooper. Worryingly, the proposal risks bringing back far more frequent recording of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (‘NCHI’), this after all the effort we have expended in getting these expunged from the records of people who have simply expressed a controversial view in the public square. We finish with a brief discussion of the latest report from Hope Not Hate, which focuses on what it calls the new ‘Radical Right’. This phenomenon allegedly “differs from the traditional far right in that it advocates an illiberal democracy rather than overthrow of the system itself”. Rather ludicrously, this leads to a document that lists senior Tories such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, John Redwood and Iain Duncan Smith in Section 3, its ‘Radical Right Feature’. That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

As reported in the Telegraph and in detail on our website, University College London (UCL) has now launched an investigation into its decision to ban academic and FSU member Michelle Shipworth from teaching a “provocative” course involving China in order to protect its commercial interests. The twists and turns in the story are quite breathtaking and include the startling moment when a UCL professor admits, “I have no idea who J.S. Mill is”. The whole drama is recounted today by Ben who has been involved in the case since Michelle first contacted the FSU for help. We also discuss a new report by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens that blows the whistle on so-called anti-blasphemy extremism in the UK. The Times explains that the report was first commissioned by the government’s counterextremism chief and exposes links between activists at the forefront of recent protests in the UK and an extremist Islamist political party in Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP). TLP was temporarily banned in Pakistan because of violent rallies and its support for mob execution of perceived blasphemers. Worryingly, the report reveals the emergence of a UK wing of TLP. As we discuss, it feels very late in the day for us to be waking up to this threat. Anti-blasphemy extremism is an affront to British values and is bad news for us all, but perhaps especially for our most vulnerable Muslim groups, such as the Ahmadis. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

The FSU has published an essay by Tim Dieppe (Head of Public Policy at Christian Concern) with a Foreword by Professor Richard Dawkins. Tim argues that any attempt to define ‘Islamophobia’ will have a chilling effect on free speech – and we agree. The dystopian graphic at the top of the paper underlines the point that if society were to accept the APPG’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’, and then do its best to eradicate it, we’d have to shut down every Islamic Studies department in Britain’s universities. Despite being ill-thought out and not fit for purpose, the APPG’s definition is gaining traction and is likely to become more entrenched, not less, over the coming years. Christianity is up next as we turn to an article in the Telegraph revealing that the Church of England is hiring a “deconstructing whiteness” officer to combat racial injustice. The Rt Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the Bishop of Dover, told Synod on 25th February that Anglicans needed to “further embed racial justice” and should not be afraid of being called “woke”. We discuss whether the Church of England might not be in danger of earning a rebuke akin to that received by the first century church in Laodicea. The trendy new Woke religion ends our line-up today as we discuss BBC partiality in its treatment of Justin Webb for saying, “trans women, in other words males” on BBC Radio 4 last August. We could do worse than quote former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, from a recent article for the Daily Mail, “the problem is that the erasure of biological truth is becoming a professional practice by our media”. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Many listeners will already be familiar with the name of Freddie Attenborough, the FSU’s Communications Officer, who joins us for today’s episode. Freddie writes our weekly newsletter, pens numerous free speech related articles and stoically mans the FSU’s social media fort twenty-four hours a day. It was great to have him with us, particularly in light of the astonishing scenes last week both inside and outside Parliament. The drama followed the Speaker’s decision to depart from convention by selecting Labour’s amendment in a debate on Gaza. It may not have been immediately apparent from the media reporting at the time but, as we discuss, free speech was very much at the heart of the incident. Freddie has written a superb piece about this dark day for our democracy. We fear such scenes could become more common if a future government were to adopt the APPG (All Party Parliamentary Group) 2017 definition of Islamophobia. As Ben points out, under this definition even historians of late antiquity could be deemed Islamophobic if they write about the historical spread of Islam in the wrong way. There is good news to report in the world of policing, following the establishment of a new Police SEEN group. SEEN stands for ‘Sex Equality and Equity Network” and the group's aim is to push back against the influence of LGBT lobby groups and activists within the service. We end today’s episode by asking Freddie about his hopes and concerns for freedom of expression in the UK over the coming years and he provides some insight that will definitely need further exploration in a future episode. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Since its establishment in March 2023, the Ian Mactaggart Programme has provided generous financial support to a range of free speech initiatives among young people. One particularly exciting project is the inaugural ‘Modern Dissent’ lecture. This will be given by Professor Eric Kaufmann, FSU Advisory Council member and Head of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham and will take place on Wednesday 28th February (tickets available here). Moving to the arts world, Arts Council England (ACE) funded Soho Theatre had to apologise last week for the behaviour of one of its performers who subjected several Jewish members of the audience to verbal abuse. As the apology makes clear, this was an appalling incident, but The Telegraph also reported that it may have been the catalyst for a broader debate around ACE’s new Relationship Framework, released in January of this year. According to the new framework, political or activist statements made by individuals linked to ACE-funded projects – even if they were in a personal capacity and not directly related to the work they were making – could cause reputational risk and ultimately breach funding agreements. Given the ongoing threat to freedom in the arts that we see across the UK, it is encouraging to hear that ACE has since released a statement that the new framework is back under review following concerns raised. There is also the news that Simon Fanshawe OBE has been elected rector of the university of Edinburgh. As Freddie Attenborough reports on our website, this has led to a predictable backlash from transgender rights activists. We end by drawing listeners’ attention to an excellent article in The Critic this week by Professor Alan Sokal. He surveys the state of free speech in the West and his piece serves as a useful pointer to much of the great thinking that has come before us, including John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.  

There is a lot going on behind the scenes at the Royal Society of Literature (RSL), as reported this week in The Times and written up in detail on the FSU website. Several current fellows of the RSL, including three former presidents, say that the organisation’s refusal to take public stands on authors Kate Clanchy and Sir Salman Rushdie has called into question its support for a writer’s right to freedom of expression. Kate Clanchy won the Orwell Prize in 2020 but suffered the ire of an online mob when activists discovered a handful of sentences that deployed what they described as ‘racial stereotypes’. Ahead of a speech in August 2022, Sir Salman was attacked on stage by an Islamist sympathiser and stabbed multiple times, in the chest, liver, hand, face and neck. The response from the RSL was best summed up by Sir Salman himself in a post on X, “Just wondering if the Royal Society of Literature is ‘impartial’ about attempted murder? (Asking for a friend.)” For our other main segment, we discuss Army Guidance that encourages soldiers to avoid Christian elements in Acts of Remembrance and says that Acts of Remembrance should be separated from Remembrance Services. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, given the 93 diversity networks now active across the Ministry of Defence. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

Our first story, which was reported in The Telegraph over the weekend, has hit a nerve with the nation. Millions have now watched the short video put together by Toby Young with Newcastle United fan – and FSU member – Linzi Smith. During an investigation into Linzi’s perfectly lawful gender critical tweets, NUFC asked the Premier League to scrutinise her further. The League’s investigation unit, based in London and embedded in its legal department, did exactly that and came back with a detailed dossier. The cache of documents refers to Linzi as the “target”, contains photos in which she can be seen walking her dog and includes a note that she has "ties" to nearby Whitley Bay. In East Germany, at least, everyone tended to assume that the Stasi was watching them. We certainly don’t expect covert investigations to be directed at British citizens by private companies. As well as incredibly chilling, we believe that it could be a breach of Linzi’s GDPR rights and she has raised a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). We end today with a discussion on the resignation of justice minister Mike Freer who will step down at the next election following a string of Islamist threats and incidents. What does it mean for free expression when elected representatives who do their job by speaking out for their constituents ultimately decide that the risk to their personal safety is just too great?   ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.

‘Britain isn’t a free country’. That’s the title of a recent Spectator article by Ed West and we fear he could be onto something. At the very least, it seems that we are no longer as sure of our freedoms as we used to be. All is not lost, though! The FSU’s success rate on cases now stands at nearly 75%, proving that it is possible to resist cancel culture and win. Also good to see is that we Brits still bristle when our personal freedoms are overtly threatened, as evidenced by a recent incident involving musician Brendan Kavanagh. At London’s St Pancras station, ‘Dr K’, as he’s called on YouTube, had a run-in with a group of Chinese tourists who claimed their privacy was being infringed by the livestream of his piano playing. But, as listeners may already know, this attempt at suppression led only to a far more viral response. The story was even written up in USA Today and Dr K was invited to discuss it live on TalkTV. At the end of today’s episode, we come back to the conversion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Christianity and some interesting insight from Professor Richard Dawkins. ‘That's Debatable!’ is edited by Jason Clift.