'We need free speech and open, reasoned debate more than ever - but the views must be legal,' says Bill Rammell

As Higher Education Minister I supported the right of the Oxford Union to invite the BNP’s Nick Griffin. Because extremism, unless it is violent, needs challenging and exposing through free debate.

The importance of free speech and open debate is even more pressing given the age we live in where people increasingly live in almost parallel universes, exacerbated by social media algorithms where the only news feeds and information you get are those that accord with your own views and prejudices.

The riots after the tragic murders in Southport reinforce the case for free speech and open debate.

Tens of thousands mobilised by the far-right engaging in violence, thuggery and attempted murder on a scale I cannot recall. Throwing bricks at police, firebombing hotels housing asylum seekers, and storming mosques. It has been horrifying.

We need free speech and open, reasoned debate in this context more than ever.

As the new Chief Executive of Parallel Histories, an educational charity which specialises in the resourcing of schools to teach and debate contested history - Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland and much more, my convictions about the importance of free speech and open debate are reinforced. In a sense, we are the antidote to what you might describe as cancel culture.

Parallel Histories offers a new way to study the history of conflict - history which is still contested, controversial and relevant. Our teaching methodology challenges students to examine the source evidence and debate alternative interpretations before coming to their own view. These are skills which not only help young people with the study of history but also prepare them to become active citizens. And it gives them excellent employability skills.

So, given my commitment to free speech and open debate, why then do I support our new Labour Government’s decision to suspend the last Government’s free speech law for Higher Education?

Because bluntly it was not necessary. It was performative so that the Conservatives could engage in culture wars for their own sake.

The 1986 Thatcher Education Act already places legal duties on universities to uphold free speech. This applies to students, staff and visiting speakers.

As Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said: “Universities already have obligations under the law to protect freedom of speech and we will hold institutions to them. Students should be challenged and face new ideas. Under this Government that is what universities will be about.”

Well, amen to that. And the Government must hold universities’ feet to the fire on this.

MORE FROM GBN MEMBERSHIP:

• SNAP POLL: Should Labour rethink its decision to abandon free speech law? Your verdict
• 'The Tories are obsessed about immigration and are clueless on the key issues affecting Britain'
• Establishment media accused of trampling on free speech with Ofcom 'kitemark' in wake of riots

However, the Conservative Party also needs to end their confused double standards. They fulminate against cancel culture, yet that’s exactly what they try to do with anyone they disagree with.

Witness Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick who called for anyone saying Allahu Akbar (a Muslim expression of faith) to be arrested.

And when it comes to double standards on free speech, these are not confined to the Tory Party.

Witness many on the liberal left who steadfastly uphold (rightly) the right of people to protest and speak out in favour of Palestinians in Gaza. Yet they then proceed to try to deny platforms to those who seek to support the right of Israel to exist.

And as long as views are legal, people should be able to express them.

Free speech, open debate, not banning and shaming people for their views, and the absolute right to speak within the law. That is crucial. And we have the legal tools to ensure that in universities. We didn’t need the stunt that is the new HE free speech Act. Labour was right to suspend it.