Connie Shaw

Earlier today a @Guardian journalist sent me this query: Dear Toby Young, I'm Aisha Down, a journalist at the Guardian. I'm getting in touch because we're planning to report that the US state department is considering a grant of $5m to Free Speech Union, your organisation, as part of a new grant-making scheme, and wanted to give you the chance to comment. We would appreciate receiving your comment by 14:30. We are considering reporting the following: - The grant to the FSU is part of a package to Maga aligned groups that former US officials have condemned as a misuse of public money to seek influence over foreign politics and interfere with democracy. - It is rare for the US government to fund partisan political organisations in western countries. - These grants are likely to pose a challenge to Andy Burnham, who has said he will be "very upfront" with Trump about any disagreements. - These grants - including to your organisation - are "sole source" grants, meaning they are to be awarded without any competitive process. This is unusual for a highly regulated process which usually requires grantees to show they have a track record for handling funds and clear plans for the money. - This lack of process has been criticised as "outrageous and absurd" by former US officials, and as "gross incompetence" and "horrible stewardship" of US taxpayer money. - Your organisation does not appear to have a track record of handling grants of this amount. - We describe your organisation as "a rallying point for “anti-woke” grievance" which "frequently allies itself with rightwing causes" and say that you, Toby Young, appeared on Rees-Mogg's GB news show earlier this month to warn about 'Soviet-style' censorship in the UK. - The state department says that its grant to FSU will “support campaigns promoting free speech and countering digital overregulation across the UK, Europe and Australia”. The sole-source award is justified “due to FSU’s global network of free speech activists”. We would like to fully and fairly reflect your point of view and look forward to your statement. Thank you, -- Aisha Kehoe Down Senior Tarbell Fellow, Guardian News and Media I replied as follows: It sounds like a pretty garbled story. Free Speech Union International, which is the umbrella group that FSU UK, FSU Australia, FSU New Zealand, FSU Canada, FSU South Africa and FSU Brazil sit within, has expressed interest in applying for grant funding from the US State Department. This would be to promote the right to freedom of expression in those countries, which, far from being a partisan cause, is a universal human right. But it hasn't submitted a formal application and, consequently, has been awarded no grant from the State Department or any other branch of the US Government. You've mischaracterised the FSUs, all of which are non-partisan organisations that defend people who get into trouble for exercising their right to feee speech regardless of their political views. The FSU UK, for instance, is currently paying for the legal defence of a protestor who's being prosecuted for holding up a sign saying "I support Palestine Action", as well as a protestor for wearing a t-shirt at a Unite the Kingdom rally for saying "Fuck Islam Christ is King". Yes, we helped Lucy Connolly appeal her sentence -- we thought a prison sentence of over two-and-a-half years for a single tweet was excessive -- but we also tweeted yesterday, condemning the arrest of Heather Herbert and offering our support. Yes, we came to the defence of Nigel Farage when he was debanked, but we've also offered to help the Canary in its recent debanking case. So to describe the FSU UK as a "rallying point for anti-woke grievance" is misleading. We are a rallying point for those who want to defend the right to freedom of expression. Best, Toby The @Guardian then ran this story: theguardian.com/us-news/2026/j… You be the judge of whether you think this is good journalism.

The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him. Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe. The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments. While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead. Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions. Police Scotland has a poor record when it comes to recognising citizens’ rights to free speech. If Heather has been charged with a speech offence, the Free Speech Union is here to help. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw 👇

This is when he knew…. @KonstantinKisin wins.

Speaking ill of the dead is not an offence, however offensive. If Heather Herbert joins the @SpeechUnion, we will do our best to help.

The Government has announced a Bill to ban conversion practices that is so poorly and broadly drafted that it could see parents, therapists and religious leaders locked up for up to five years if they engage in well-intentioned conversations with gender-confused children or dare to share their faith’s teachings on sex, gender and marriage. On this week’s episode of the FSU Podcast, FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw sits down with therapist @JamesEsses. The Minister for Equalities, Olivia Bailey MP, claims the Bill will not stop parents and therapists from talking openly to children with identity issues. She says it only criminalises conversion practices that are abusive and cause serious harm. However, James Esses, who works with children who believe they are “trapped in the wrong body”, argues that the proposed new law puts him at risk of imprisonment. Watch the full episode below 👇

Cannot believe the Good Law Project would be so sharkphobic. Bigots.

You called me a racist in the Commons - and refused to withdraw. You said the “Islamophobia” definition would not be used to silence discussion of religion - you lied. You said defining “Islamophobia” would not be conflated with racism - yet that's what you did. You're right - when people speak, they reveal who they really are.

🚨 BREAKING: The Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF) is supporting a working-class student who left school at 13 and spent years saving and studying after work to get into university, but who may now be forced to abandon his PhD after being frozen out on an art programme. His “crime”? Introducing the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton into a seminar on aesthetics. Matthew Keehan, who studies at Solent University, says disagreements over the dominance of critical race theory and other “progressive” philosophies on his course escalated into ostracism by his peers, disciplinary threats and a politically charged viva. Trouble began when, ahead of an in-person seminar on art and aesthetics, he circulated Roger Scruton’s Fools, Frauds and Firebrands to the group. Matthew argued that academia had for too long excluded important conservative voices, and said he wanted students to hear a wider “cacophony” of perspectives. When no one replied, he followed up with a link to Scruton’s lecture “Art Today”, which critiques the way postmodern approaches have, in Scruton’s view, hollowed out artistic standards. Again, no one responded. During the seminar, Matthew asked whether anyone had read the material, and was told by the lecturer — who also happened to be his supervisor — that “we felt it was inappropriate”. Months later, a fellow postgraduate reached out and told him that members of the group had effectively been advised not to contact him because of the “C word” — “Conservative” — following his circulation of the Scruton material. It was in this culture that concerns later arose over Matthew’s PhD viva. During that viva, Matthew — an Irishman who grew up on a deprived council estate — was criticised as a “Western, white, male researcher” whose work had failed to reflect on the “privileges associated with race and cultural dominance” supposedly attaching to his identity. CAF has been supporting Matthew in making a formal complaint to the university about the culture of his department and his treatment after raising concerns about the intellectual direction of the course. We are also helping him prepare a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and a formal notification to the Office for Students. We’ve written more about this shocking case for @TheCriticMag here: thecritic.co.uk/solent-mean/ To keep up to date with Matthew’s case, and with CAF’s wider work supporting academics and students facing censorship, ideological discrimination and threats to academic freedom, sign up to our free newsletter here: afcomm.org.uk/updates-from-t… @ProfAliceS @drianpace @epkaufm @Fox_Claire @NigelBiggar @LauraTrottMP @ObhishekSaha

Not the Left cancelling their own for being kind? Not even for being kind, just for expressing horror at the idea of someone being murdered. Interesting use of the word ‘we’ as well, highlighting the all or nothing nature of the Left’s authoritarianism. I had a friend, who wasn’t even political, who was pretty shocked and confused that I would publicly say I was sad about the murder of Charlie Kirk. Oh it’s all so bizarre.

The Free Speech Union is deeply shocked and saddened to hear of the death of Ann Widdecombe — a formidable woman and a staunch defender of free speech. Rest in peace, Ann.

The Met Police have paid Graham Linehan £25,000 and offered an unreserved apology after arresting him at Heathrow over three gender-critical posts last year. The Free Speech Union welcomes this, but Graham should never have been arrested in the first place. Time and again, the taxpayer is left to foot the bill for the Met Police’s repeated failures. It is time — once and for all — for the police to learn the lesson: police our streets, not our tweets. Graham’s story is emblematic of the UK’s free speech crisis and exposes the hollowness of Keir Starmer’s assurance to President Trump that Britain still has a proud tradition of free speech. It is a national embarrassment. Linehan, an Irish comedian who lives in the US, was arrested by five armed police officers, detained for hours and questioned, before being rushed to hospital with dangerously high blood pressure. What sort of signal does that send to the rest of the world? When he was released, he was placed under draconian bail conditions, initially including a ban on posting on X. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw on GB News 👇

📣🚨 METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFER UNRESERVED APOLOGY TO GRAHAM LINEHAN AND PAY HIM £25,000 The Metropolitan Police have at long last offered an unreserved apology to Graham Linehan and paid him £25,000. Last September, the Irish comedian and co-creator of Father Ted was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow Airport. His crime? Three gender-critical posts on X. He was arrested, taken to a police station and questioned for several hours. In the early hours of the following morning, he was rushed to hospital after his blood pressure rose to dangerously high levels. The Free Speech Union is proud to have supported Graham in taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and breaches of his free speech rights. General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, has said: “I’m beginning to lose count of the number of cases we’ve fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest. “At some point you’d think the penny would drop: police our streets, not our tweets.” While we welcome the Metropolitan Police’s apology and compensation payout to @Glinner, this should never have happened in the first place. It is high time the police focused on our streets, not our tweets. Watch Graham’s reaction below 👇

Unbearable smugness

Is this content from the British Transport Police not the sort of thing the government would be concerned about contributing to the so called “divisive and inaccurate narratives” that it wishes to prevent?

When Andy Burnham won in Makerfield, he said in his victory speech: "the best thing that we can say about last night is that there was a risk, if you like, that we would carry on seeing Britain and the politics of our country go down a path towards greater darkness and division and ending up somewhere like the United States of America where people don't talk to each other in the street if they vote different ways, or in their work place. We will not let that happen here." It was clear that he was referring to the fact that he had defeated Reform / Restore. How odd that he would simultaneously suggest that people who voted for them were trying to lead Britain down a path of "darkness and division", yet that he also does not want to end up in a place where people do not speak to each other due to political differences. News flash, we arrived at this place long ago in Britain, and Labour have been pretty good at maintaining this environment. For example, Josh Simons, who stood down in order for Burnham to run, had to leave his government role after it was revealed that he had commissioned a report which spread false and misleading information about journalists who had dared to criticise Labour Together and Keir Starmer. Perhaps it is the case that people who vote for Reform and Restore have very legitimate concerns about immigration based on the reality of what they have seen Britain become. And they have been able to know about this reality, in no small part, due to @elonmusk's X, along side what they see in their every day lives. We would not know, for example, that a man was arrested on Saturday in Leeds after he insulted Muhammad, had it not been for independent content creator @NewsNowYorks filming and sharing the footage. We would not know the reality of the alleged attempted beheading in Belfast by a Sudanese migrant had it not been for a member of the public filming and sharing it. The public would not know about the extent of the rape gangs had it not been for the free discussion on X. No where near as many people would have known about the murder of Henry Nowak and the behaviour of the police had it not been for independent news sources sharing the video widely. Now, the government is proposing that social media sites should be obliged to promote “prominence for trustworthy news” (i.e state funded and regulated) in order to suppress "divisive narratives” that emerge from a "growing range of independent commentators". Lucy Powell, the same person who called the rape gangs a "dog whistle", thinks that X is "toxic" and that social media should be regulated during general elections. It's as though they think we have no idea what they mean when they say "darkness and division", "divisive narratives", or that X "isn't healthy for our democracy". They are not just referring to you expressing your concerns about multicultural Britain and daring to want to vote for a right wing party - they don't even want you to be able to know about the reality of multicultural Britain in case it risks you wanting to express such concerns in the first place. That is why they told you not to share the video of the Sudanese migrant allegedly trying to behead a man in Belfast. They will tell you these proposals are not about suppressing freedom of speech. You know, just like when Steve Reed said the Anti Muslim Hostility definition was not about suppressing freedom of speech or criticism of Islam or Islamic practices, but then went on to call @NJ_Timothy "racist" and demand that he apologise for his comments about Islam and Islamic practices, and the Prime Minister to call on Kemi Badenoch to sack him. They think we are mugs and are not ashamed to be brazen about it. They have made clear that they want to control what content we consume so we are unaware of reality, and thus have no reason to want to vote for right wing parties. And they are genuinely hoping we will believe them when they say they are wanting to do this to improve democracy.

‘Labour MPs hate X because they can’t deal with the fact that the British public are very angry.’ Free Speech Union’s Connie Shaw reacts to Labour Deputy Leader Lucy Powell calling X ‘toxic’ as she outlines plans to censor social media during the general election.

‘The most authoritarian government in living memory.’ ‘This is Soviet-esque stuff going on here’ Connie Shaw warns about ‘authoritarian’ Labour, as the Deputy Leader Lucy Powell plans to censor social media ahead of the general election.

This is fantastic

This chap was dropped from Love Island immediately after entering the villa because he was referenced in court documents in relation to a stabbing that occurred in 2019. He was not charged with any crime, but was referenced in the documents because he was present at the incident. George Knight was also dropped earlier on in the season, reportedly partly due to “unacceptable language” and formal warning from ITV. It has never been revealed what this “unacceptable language” was, but he has been accused by viewers of using “microaggressions” towards non-white islanders. For example, referring to a girl’s fashion as “exotic”. Meanwhile, one of the main stars of this season, who is still in the villa, posted this on her story on October 7th 2023. Two tier ITV.