Extracts from Commons proceedings - May 13
|
Point of Order Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab): On a
point of order, Mr Speaker, I would appreciate your guidance. As
you may be aware, yesterday the Minister for Universities, speaking
on Radio 4, said that it is the Government’s policy to protect and
promote the free speech of controversial and offensive advocates at
universities. She explicitly confirmed that this would include
holocaust deniers, who would be supported in law against people
protesting against them. There are...Request free trial
Point of
Order
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would appreciate your guidance. As you may be aware, yesterday the Minister for Universities, speaking on Radio 4, said that it is the Government’s policy to protect and promote the free speech of controversial and offensive advocates at universities. She explicitly confirmed that this would include holocaust deniers, who would be supported in law against people protesting against them. There are few more serious crimes in history than the Nazi holocaust—the murder of 6 million Jews, as well as hundreds of thousands of Roma and Sinti, disabled and LGBT people, political opponents and other minority groups—and to hear a Minister say that the Government plan to change the law to take the side of those who would deny that genocide is truly appalling. As a proudly Jewish parliamentarian, my blood ran cold listening to the interview. There is no merit to any assertion that either academic rigour or the university experience is improved by exposure to such ideology. Holocaust denial cannot and should not be protected speech under the law. How can you assist in ensuring that the Universities Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to explain what she has said, apologise, and recant this chilling policy? Mr Speaker May I first thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order? I want to set out on record that I find the idea of holocaust denial completely abhorrent; let me make sure that people are aware of that. The hon. Member will have the opportunity to clarify this matter when the relevant legislation is before the House. I hope that she will take it up with the Minister at the appropriate time when that legislation comes forward. In the meantime, I am sure that it would also be worth asking for a meeting with the Minister for clarification. Extracts from Commons debate on the Queen's Speech The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson): The Universities Minister never said that this would protect holocaust deniers, and it would not protect holocaust deniers because this party does not stand for antisemitism unlike the Labour party. This party recognises that we need to eradicate antisemitism and racism of all kinds, and this legislation will never, never, never protect holocaust deniers, because that is something that should never, and will never, be tolerated. Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Antisemitism is intolerable in my party, and in any organisation and any part of this country, but I am very sorry to tell the Secretary of State that the legislation does appear to offer protection, potentially, to antisemites and holocaust deniers; and the Universities Minister yesterday was not able to gainsay that... Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware, having listened to the interview on Radio 4 yesterday, that the Universities Minister was explicitly asked whether this legislation would cover holocaust denial and she explicitly said that it would. This is appalling. There is no academic merit whatever in debate, distortion or denial of the holocaust. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the Secretary of State should correct the record, because what he said just then has misled the House. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton): I am sure that the hon. Lady would say “inadvertently misled the House”. Kate Green: Let me read a transcript of the broadcast yesterday. The Universities Minister says: “What this bill is designed to do is to protect and promote free speech which is lawful so any free speech which is lawful”. The interviewer, Evan Davis, says: “It is lawful isn’t it? Holocaust denial in this country is lawful isn’t it?” The Minister says: “So what I’m saying, yeah, so that’s” Evan Davis asks: “So holocaust denial is okay, you’d defend a holocaust denier being invited to campus because that is part of the free speech argument?” The Minister responds: “Obviously it would depend on exactly what they were saying”. Madam Deputy Speaker, it never depends on what a holocaust denier is saying. Gavin Williamson: Let us be absolutely clear that this legislation will never protect holocaust deniers. It protects free speech within the law. It protects the fact that—we know that antisemitic activity and antisemitism are not to be tolerated. It is clear in the Equality Act 2010. We will never tolerate it, and this legislation will not allow holocaust deniers to be able to spread their hate and misinformation on our campuses. Kate Green: I am grateful for that assurance on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State. I hope when we are able to debate the Bill again on the Floor of the House and in Committee that we can work together to make sure that we have absolutely watertight provisions to ensure that there is no place for antisemitism anywhere on campus... Charlotte Nichols: I agree with the right hon. Member on some level about the need to protect our nation’s history. If he is so concerned about ensuring that the nation’s history is protected, will he condemn the comments made by the Minister for Universities on Radio 4 yesterday about holocaust deniers and people who wish to debate the facts of the holocaust being protected under the new free speech in universities legislation that his Government are bringing forward? Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con):...I did not hear the interview. All I can say is that antisemitism like Islamophobia and all the isms, is completely wrong, regrettable and horrible. I would have hoped that it would not have not been necessary to bring in such a Bill because there will be all sorts of unintended consequences. I heard a university vice-chancellor say yesterday, “How are we going to police it?” I understand all this. Therefore, it is down to the leadership of the universities and the schools to ensure free speech, within reason... To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE |