The Free Speech Union

A British university student is facing prosecution after comparing a Keffiyeh worn by a pro-Palestinian activist to a “tea towel” during Freshers’ Fair at @RoyalHolloway. 20-year-old Brodie Mitchell told the President of the Friends of Palestine Society, Huda El-Jamal, that her keffiyeh looked like a “tea towel” after she called him a “wannabe Jew” because he was defending Israel and mocked him for not wearing a Jewish “hat”. In a classic case of double standards on campus, Brodie was handed a nine-week suspension the following day “for alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech”. He was told his comments were “Islamophobic”, “racist”, and “anti-Palestinian” and was barred from campus and forced to leave his student accommodation. Surrey Police have now confirmed they have sent a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision — meaning Brodie could face prosecution for saying El-Jamal’s headscarf looked like a “tea towel”. Meanwhile, she faced no disciplinary action and continued her studies as normal. Welcome to two-tier Britain. The case could be the first of many, given the Government’s decision to publish an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” and encourage universities to embed it in their speech policies. The definition is already being used to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. The Free Speech Union is supporting Brodie. With our help, he has been allowed back on campus, but under conditions that dictate who he can speak to and what he’s allowed to say. With our support, Brodie is taking Royal Holloway to the High Court, arguing he was unfairly forced to miss seven weeks of teaching, potentially delaying completion of his degree. We’ve also provided him with a top-notch criminal legal team in case the CPS decides to prosecute him. His own university, Royal Holloway, is spending nearly three-quarters of a million pounds defending its actions. At a recent hearing, it initially said its total costs could be as high as £734,000, with the risk that Brodie will have to pay them if he loses. In other words, the university is trying to scare him into dropping the case. But we’ve got his back. Welcome to the reality of free speech on English university campuses. In the absence of the complaints scheme that was legislated for in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act being activated by Bridget Phillipson – she has delayed doing so for 18 months now – these are the ruinous costs facing students who want to stand up for their right to free speech. On this week’s episode of the FSU Podcast, Brodie Mitchell (@BrodieMitchell1) shares his story with @_ConnieShaw. The full episode is available on the FSU YouTube channel (link in first reply).

"What’s needed is reform that will actually deliver timely justice for victims, complainants and defendants without unnecessarily eroding a deeply rooted constitutional principle that enables democratic participation." In a joint opinion piece for the Telegraph, our Chair @Kirsty_Brimelow KC and Labour MP Charlotte Nichols set out – from the Bar’s perspective and victims’ perspective – why the government’s proposals to curtail jury trials won’t work. Together they argue that “victims’ experiences are being weaponised” and propose “measures that actually will make a difference, introducing specialist courts with a jury, allowing the opening of courts, implementing the increase of legal aid to retain barristers and reclassifying offences that should not be in the Crown Court”. We’re calling on MPs to support Charlotte’s amendment (New Clause 2) to the Courts and Tribunals Bill proposing a new specialist court now. Read the full op-ed ➡️ bit.ly/3OIhvaq #JusticeNeedsJuries

🚨DfE officials have informed me that the government will provide an update next week on the free speech complaints scheme. We must wait to see what it says, but this progress has only been possible because of the sustained efforts of various free speech advocates.

✍️SIGN OUR PETITION TO SAVE JURY TRIALS: forms.cloud.microsoft/pages/response…

David Lammy is trying to take away your right to trial by jury in the biggest assault on English liberty — particularly free speech — in over 800 years. He is doing so despite there being no clear evidence it would reduce the Crown Court backlog. In fact, the Institute for Government has shown it would save just 2% of Crown Court time, not the 20% claimed by Lammy. Judges, lawyers, MPs, and victims of crime have all warned that the Government’s plan to slash jury trials would undermine public trust in the criminal justice system. Join over 40,000 people in signing our petition to SAVE JURY TRIALS 👇

Jury trial is a cornerstone of our justice system. This Labour Government is taking a sledgehammer to it.

The Government has published an official definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” that amounts, in effect, to a de facto blasphemy law. It is already being weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Within 45 minutes of the Communities Secretary announcing the definition, pro-Gaza independent MP Iqbal Mohamed asked whether it could be incorporated into the Seven Principles of Public Life — the standards expected of public office holders, including MPs. In effect, he was asking whether MPs could be sanctioned for comments made in Parliament deemed to constitute “anti-Muslim hostility”. When Shadow Justice Secretary @NJ_Timothy criticised a mass Muslim prayer event in Trafalgar Square, Labour MPs reported him to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded him an “Islamophobe”, and the Prime Minister even demanded his resignation. In a free society, no religion should be placed above others or afforded special protection from legitimate criticism. The Free Speech Union is taking on the Government in one of the biggest — and most important — fights in our six-year history. We’re calling on the Communities Secretary to scrap this attempt to reintroduce an Islamic blasphemy law via the back door. If you can, please do donate to our crowdfunder👇

Rape victim MP leads Labour jury trial rebellion telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/1…

Slashing our right to trial by jury was not in Labour’s manifesto, but creating specialist courts was. Labour MP Charlotte Nichols has tabled an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that threatens to kill off David Lammy’s plan to curb our right to elect for a jury trial. Her amendment would establish specialist courts with juries for victims of sexual offences, including rape and domestic abuse. Last month, Nichols bravely waived her anonymity during a debate in the House of Commons, where she revealed for the first time that she had been raped. She has, alongside the Chair of the Bar Council, Kirsty Brimelow, have accused the Government of “weaponising” victims by claiming that removing jury trials would reduce delays and court backlogs. Nichols argues that these fast-track courts would reduce the record backlog of cases faster than the Government’s reforms — while preserving our 800-year-old right to a jury trial. Nichols said: “Victims’ experiences are being weaponised to drive through these reforms, despite the most significant delays in rape and domestic abuse cases occurring at the investigation and charging stage.” She added: “The Government has attempted to position those speaking against the reduction of jury trials as being against victims. This is as ignorant as it is arrogant. It is barristers who give a voice to complainants in court and act to safeguard their rights. And so we join together to resist the political rhetoric. “This is not about trying to preserve tradition at all costs, but about respecting the specific historical development of our legal system. It was very recently held up as a global standard. It can be again — but not by slashing its structures.” There is no evidence that limiting our right to jury trials would solve the backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court. In fact, the Institute for Government has shown it would save just 2% of Crown Court time — not the 20% Lammy promised. The amendment has been backed by 51 MPs — mostly Labour — in the 24 hours since it was published. It needs around 30 more MPs to overturn the Government’s working majority.

David Lammy is spearheading the biggest assault on English liberty — particularly free speech — in over 800 years. Juries are a vital bulwark against both a repressive state and an increasingly militant cancel-culture mob. FSU research shows that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court with a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. Take the case of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael. Reported to police by a Labour Party staffer, he was arrested at work for ‘stirring up racial hatred’ after posting a 12-minute Facebook video in the wake of the Southport murders, criticising mass illegal migration. A jury took just 17 minutes to find him not guilty. If Lammy gets his way, more people will be locked up simply for exercising their right to free speech.

Polly Clark is a novelist and TS Eliot Prize–shortlisted poet who recently published Afterlife: New and Selected Poems. Before publication, she was told that Gutter Magazine — a Scottish literary journal — had selected her book as “Book of the Month”, describing it as ‘funny, feminine and violent; confessional yet mysterious’. The review was published. Within days, it had disappeared. Polly rightly asked why. When pressed, Gutter told her publisher: ‘A reader drew our attention to social media posts (completely unrelated) by Polly Clark that they considered to be offensive.’ They added that they are a ‘welcoming publishing space’, including for trans writers, and that promoting Ms Clark ‘risked undermining this goal’. Polly raised the issue with both Gutter and Creative Scotland — which funds the magazine — but neither has agreed to reinstate the review or explain its removal. The Free Speech Union has proudly supported Polly throughout, alongside Freedom in the Arts. A Subject Access Request (SAR) has now revealed that the sole complaint was a private message referring to Polly’s social media posts, accompanied by screenshots that did not substantiate the claims. Those claims were never tested, and Polly was not contacted. The accusation was acknowledged, met with a heart emoji, and acted upon. Polly’s work was censored for holding lawful gender-critical views protected under the Equality Act 2010. Her case raises fundamental questions about free speech, due process, and decisions made without scrutiny or accountability. Polly writes: “I have explored the possibility of legal action. Neither employee nor ‘service user’, I fall outside the limited categories through which such discrimination can currently be litigated. There is no clear legal route to challenge what has happened. Censorship of this kind remains, for now, a moral and cultural offence rather than a legal one. Of course, that makes it no less real.” Adding: “That this can still happen in plain sight, even now, is painful to accept. In the absence of legal remedy – and indeed even if there were such redress – my work is to continue writing, to bear witness to things as they are, and to hold onto the hope of a less censorious literary culture.” Free speech is under threat across society — particularly in higher education and the arts. Read Polly’s Substack below and watch her recent FSU member testimonial 👇

The Government’s authoritarian jury reforms face a key hurdle in Parliament today. With MPs back from recess, scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill resumes. As many as 90 Labour MPs are reportedly ready to “kill off” reforms that would slash our ancient right to trial by jury. Labour MP Charlotte Nichols has tabled an important amendment to introduce specialist rape and domestic abuse courts, where cases would be heard by both a jury and a specialist judge. Her amendment would also remove all Government clauses that “restrict jury trials”. As Karl Turner MP points out, curbing jury trials was not in Labour’s manifesto — but specialist courts were. If Nichols’s amendment fails, the Bill may struggle to progress through the House of Lords. We all know jury trials aren’t the problem — and scrapping them won’t fix anything. Backbench MPs are fighting to protect our right to trial by jury. The Government would be wise to listen. Read more below 👇

The Free Speech Union is heading to Belfast! On the second leg of our National Roadshow, the whole team will be meeting members in Northern Ireland. From hate crimes and workplace discrimination to Online Safety and de facto blasphemy laws, there’s a lot to discuss. You’ll have the chance to speak with staff from our case, legal, engagement and education, and campaigns teams to learn more about how the Free Speech Union operates — and we look forward to hearing about free speech issues in Northern Ireland. It’s a great opportunity to meet like-minded people and hear different perspectives — over a few drinks, of course. Get your tickets below 👇

How many more people have to tell Lammy and Starmer that curbing our right to jury trials is a bad idea? Lawyers, MPs, victims and even two of the PM’s mentors have condemned his actions. Jury trials are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. We must defend them.

The founder of Starmer’s former legal chambers has condemned the Government’s plan to limit our right to jury trials. Geoffrey Robertson KC has written 9,000 words blasting the sinister plan to slash our right to trial by jury, which David Lammy has said is the only way to solve the backlog of cases in the Crown Court — despite there being no clear evidence to support him. Robertson has called the reforms “a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand” and ‘cure worse than the disease’. The prominent human rights lawyer has said, in defence of jury trials, that “The determination, by 12 citizens, of evidence tested by prosecution and defence, is a surer guide to the right result, reflecting common sense and common values, than the personal view of a judge or a bench of magistrates.” FSU research shows that those charged with a speech-related offence are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court with a jury than in a magistrates’ court without one. It is clear that jury trials are not the problem. It is the fact that courts do not sit on working days. We cannot afford to let the Government take a sledgehammer to a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Read more in @guardian 👇