The Free Speech Union

📣🚨 NEW FSU MEMBER TESTIMONIAL “Buying a Free Speech Union membership was the best thing I did at university” In 2024, @_ConnieShaw was disciplined by both Leeds University Union and the University of Leeds itself for expressing her gender-critical views. After being permanently removed from her committee position at Leeds Student Radio for daring to interview @Glinner and write for his Substack, the University of Leeds launched disciplinary action against her too, accusing her of harassing a member of staff. This was because Connie had suggested that having a man who identifies as a woman teaching feminist philosophy might lead gender-critical students to self-censor. She was accused of ‘misgendering’, ‘outing’, and using a ‘slur’ (“trans identified male”). Most outrageously, one of the charges was that she had given ‘the impression that she supports Graham Linehan’s views’ because she ‘did not dissociate herself’ from his remarks in the interview and said it was ‘an honour’ to interview him. The stakes were raised so high that, if Connie had been found guilty, she could have been expelled from the University of Leeds entirely. Lord Young wrote to the Vice-Chancellor urging her to call off the disciplinary proceedings. When that failed, the Free Speech Union instructed an external barrister, who helped draft a 16-page legal defence. It worked, and Connie was able to complete her degree. However, she was told she could not speak publicly about the ordeal, or she could face further disciplinary action. Connie completed her degree and graduated in July 2025. She is now the External Affairs Officer at the Free Speech Union and a contributor to @GBNEWS. The attempts to cancel her seriously backfired. Watch Connie’s story below 👇

Victims’ suffering is being weaponised to push through the Government’s plan to slash jury trials. While David Lammy claims curbing jury trials is the only way to reduce the Crown Court backlog of 80,000 cases, we all know that is not true. Labour MP Charlotte Nichols and the Chair of the Bar Council of England @Kirsty_Brimelow and Wales have written a joint piece for the Telegraph, calling the Government’s justification “as ignorant as it is arrogant”. Nichols has intervened powerfully in the debate and bravely waived her anonymity, revealing for the first time that she had been raped. She has proposed an amendment to establish specialist rape and domestic abuse courts, where cases would be heard by both a specialist judge and a jury. It would also remove all Government clauses intended to restrict the right to jury trials. Writing for The Telegraph, Nichols and Brimelow said: “Instead of restricting jury trials, we are proposing an amendment via New Clause 2 to the bill that introduces specialist domestic abuse and sexual offence courts. This would have a direct effect on the wait time for complainants, victims and defendants. We encourage MPs to support this amendment. We also know that it works. At Preston Crown Court, this approach to domestic abuse cases led to a 16 per cent reduction in wait time at court.” Read more in @Telegraph 👇

Weaponising law to silence the public must stop thetimes.com/article/51f966…

For years, powerful litigants — from big business to institutions like the NHS — have weaponised the law to silence ordinary people legitimately criticising them. Parliament must enact “a new law to combat cases that career through the courts unchecked, to the detriment of public discourse — an anti-SLAPP law”, writes Pia Sarma in @thetimes. We need stronger protections for public interest speech, including a fast-track route to dismiss legal action brought by those seeking to silence people speaking out on issues such as maternity care in the NHS and sexual abuse. As it stands, people are deterred from exposing wrongdoing by the threat of legal action and its financial consequences. This must change. Read more below 👇

"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 👇