Displaying items by tag: free speech

Christians gathered in London to rally for free speech as the Court of Appeal heard the case of Kristie Higgs, a Christian school worker who expressed concerns in 2019 about LGBT+ education at her son's CofE primary school. Higgs was dismissed from the school for ‘gross misconduct’ after sharing Facebook posts criticising the 'No Outsiders in Our School' programme, which introduced topics such as gender identity and same-sex relationships. Following an anonymous complaint, Higgs was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and subsequently dismissed for allegedly bringing the school into disrepute. Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, she argued her dismissal violated her rights to religious freedom and free speech. Though a tribunal initially ruled against her, a successful appeal led to a rehearing. Now, Higgs seeks a final ruling from the Court of Appeal to prevent another tribunal and protect Christian employees’ free speech rights. The hearing’s outcome could significantly impact religious expression in the workplace.

From 31 October, safe zones around abortion clinics in England and Wales will take effect, prohibiting protests within 150 metres of these facilities under the Public Order Act. The new law, which received royal assent in May last year, aims to prevent harassment, intimidation, or obstruction of women seeking abortion services, as well as clinic staff. It is now illegal to engage in behaviour that intentionally or recklessly influences someone’s decision regarding abortion services. Silent prayer may also fall under this ban, a contentious point raised by anti-abortion groups who argue it infringes on their rights to freedom of expression and religious belief. Campaigners advocating for the ban, such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, argue that it is necessary for ensuring the safety and dignity of women. The maximum penalty for violating the law will be an unlimited fine. See

On Brazil’s independence day, former president Jair Bolsonaro led thousands in a protest in Sao Paulo against the country's ban on the social media platform X. The ban was ordered by supreme court justice Alexandre de Moraes after X, owned by Elon Musk, failed to appoint a legal representative in Brazil as required. De Moraes has also had ongoing disputes with Musk over misinformation. The supreme court unanimously upheld the ban, sparking anger from far-right supporters who viewed it as an infringement on free speech. Bolsonaro, a key figure in Brazil’s far-right, called for the protest, describing it as a fight for democracy and free expression. Bolsonaro has a history of clashes with De Moraes, especially after the 2022 elections when he spread misinformation about electoral fraud, leading to protests and a violent assault on government buildings. De Moraes eventually banned Bolsonaro from office until 2030 for his role in spreading false information.

Concerns about free speech regulation have resurfaced after Elon Musk bought Twitter. Musk’s vow to ‘defeat spam bots’ and make Twitter’s algorithm public is welcomed by many, including Matt Batten, director of communication at Llandaff Church in Wales. He is pleased that there will be an edit button and that spam bots will be removed, and sees algorithms being made public as bringing greater transparency. However, his scepticism increases when it comes to free speech. He told Premier, ‘It all sounds fantastic, and we champion democracy, but whose freedom of speech?’ Political activists also expect Musk's ownership of Twitter will mean less moderation and the reinstatement of banned individuals, including Donald Trump. There are questions on what the deal will mean for Twitter's China content policy, as Musk's Tesla relies heavily on China for production and vehicle sales. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate or insult others.

Youtube has removed a sermon on sexuality by American pastor John MacArthur. The sermon violated their ‘hate speech policy’ when he said ‘there is no such thing as transgender. You are either XX or XY’. MacArthur’s comments related to Canada’s legislation, Bill C-4, which became law on 8 January. Some pastors and church leaders fear it could lead to the prohibition of sermons on biblical sexuality. Christian organisations say the wording of the bill is so broad, it could be used for ‘the criminal prosecution of Christians who speak biblical truth’. Four thousand preachers have affirmed their opposition to the bill and their willingness to speak out against it. Conservative commentator Todd Starnes said, ‘YouTube affirmed the Canadian law by banning any opposition to transgenderism on their platform, and it won’t be very long before the sex and gender revolutionaries target the source of our beliefs - the Holy Bible.’

Hatun Tash preaches Christianity at Speakers’ Corner, but when she criticises Islam she is assaulted. Police have warned her it is dangerous for her to speak there. Some Muslims want to kill her. But she feels called to preach to Muslims. Her provocative style effectively attracts attention, and people listen. When she wore a T-shirt with a cartoon of Mohammad on it, she was mobbed, arrested, and carried into a police van, to the cheers of the many Muslims nearby. Cartoons of any other figures would be within the bounds of free speech. Only under sharia law would a cartoon of Muhammad be prohibited. One Muslim suggested that ‘wearing that T-shirt is a breach of the peace’.

Rupa Huq MP raised the topic of buffer zones at abortion clinics, to help protect women who attend clinics from intimidation, saying the bill was about women being able to present themselves for healthcare, not abortion. Fiona Bruce responded, ‘Such a law would damage free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the right to  protest peaceably, and the right to receive information’. The comments were part of a ten-minute rule bill, where a backbench MP makes the case for a new bill and another MP can oppose it. They rarely become law but bring publicity to an issue. This bill passed, but is not guaranteed further Parliament debating time unless the Government chooses to make it progress. The bill’s demands are not around abortion, but are about women presenting themselves for healthcare without intimidation.

Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen was chair of the Christian Democrats from 2004 to 2015; as interior minister she had responsibility for church affairs. On 2 March she faced a police investigation because of a tweet she posted last year directed at the leadership of her church, questioning its sponsorship of the LGBT event ‘Pride 2019’, and quoting a Bible text. After a lengthy police interview last November, she now faces a second interrogation about a pamphlet she wrote 16 years ago on human sexuality for a Christian foundation. These sorts of cases create a culture of fear and censorship and are becoming common throughout Europe. In a free society, everyone should be allowed to share their beliefs without fear of censorship. Finland has a number of laws to regulate speech, including the ‘ethnic agitation’ law which carries a prison sentence of up to two years.

In the last hours of Theresa May's administration, the Government appointed Imam Qari Asim as an adviser on Islamophobia. Earlier this year he indicated that he would support laws banning speech that Muslims find offensive. He argued that although Muslims should obey the law of the land most of the time, he would like the law to accommodate Islamic ideas. For example, he would like to see polygamy legalised, and inheritance to favour male heirs in line with sharia principles. He also supports Islamic finance with its radical view that interest should be banned, and has backed Pakistani radical cleric Khadim Rizvi who supported the death penalty for Aasia Bibi. Although the government has ruled out adopting the Islamophobia definition, many believe his appointment raises even more concerns for free speech.