Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Side 190

Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021
194
International Legal Research Group
195
in February 2018 where Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg was ‘at the centre of
a highly physical fracas’419 as ‘masked protesters tried to disrupt an event he was
speaking at.’420 Similarly, disruption erupted at King’s College London in March
2018 where ‘masked activists’421 violently disrupted an ‘event featuring a
controversial anti-feminist YouTube star,’422 reportedly assaulting security
guards, smashing windows, hurling smoke bombs and setting off a fire alarm.423
Although ‘some level of peaceful protest’424 should be permitted, it is
submitted that ‘the levels of disruption in the above incidents are unacceptable
and contrary to the university’s obligation to secure freedom of speech.’425
Indeed, it is evidently ‘unacceptable for protestors to deliberately conceal their
identities, break in with clear intention to intimidate those exercising their rights
to attend meetings or to seek to stop events.’426 Further, higher education bodies
have a legal obligation to ‘initiate disciplinary measures if individual students or
student groups seek to stop legal speech, or breach the institution’s code of
conduct on freedom of speech.’427 As evidenced, higher education providers are
not only failing to combat intolerant views towards some groups on issues and
disruptive protests; they are failing to effectively promote freedom of speech and
the right to peaceful protest.
8.4.1.3 Safe Spaces
Safe space policies can be broadly defined as guidelines ‘for creating
environments on campus where all students feel safe and able to engage in
discussions and activities free from intimidation and judgement.’428 Such policies
aim to ‘restrict the expression of certain views or words that can make some
groups feel unsafe.’429 Moreover, debates occur ‘within specific guidelines to
ensure that people do not feel threatened because of their gender, ethnicity or
sexual orientation’430 and ‘may require individuals who breach the guidelines to

419 'Jacob Rees-Mogg Caught Up In Fracas As Masked Protesters Disrupt University Event' (Sky
News, 2018) <https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-caught-up-in-fracas-as-masked-
protesters-disrupt-university-event-11234071> accessed 1 June 2018.
420 ibid.
421 Camilla Turner and Helena Horton, 'Violence Breaks Out As Protesters Storm King’s College
London Event Featuring Controversial Youtuber' (The Telegraph, 2018)
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/violence-breaks-self-proclaimed-antifascists-
shut-alt-right/> accessed 1 June 2018.
422 ibid.
423 ibid.
424 (n 3).
425 ibid.
426 ibid.
427 ibid.
428 'Freedom Of Speech In Universities' (Stgeorgeshouse.org, 2016)
<https://www.stgeorgeshouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Freedom-of-Speech-in-
Universities-Report.pdf> accessed 1 June 2018.
429 (n 3).
430 ibid.
leave the discussion space.’431 It must be emphasised that ‘not all student unions
have safe space policies.’432 Although ‘the intention behind safe spaces is
understandable,’433 evidence supports the more appropriate notion that, when
extended too far, such policies ‘can restrict the expression of groups with
unpopular but legal views, or can restrict their related rights to freedom of
association.’434
8.4.2 Regulatory Barriers
Apart from student led activities, there are also significant regulatory barriers in
the current regime which have impeded on others’ rights to freedom of speech
and association, namely ‘fear and confusion over what the Prevent Duty
entails’435 and ‘unnecessary bureaucracy imposed on those organising events.’436
8.4.2.1 Prevent Duty
Although the Government has expressed concerns that freedom of speech is
being ‘undermined by a reluctance of institutions to embrace healthy vigorous
debate,’437 the introduction and enforcement of the Prevent duty within the
higher education context ‘is responsible for a perceived “chilling” of free
speech’438 on university campuses.
Moreover, the Prevent duty ‘appears to counter’439 the institution’s
obligation to uphold freedom of speech as it requires higher education bodies
‘not to proceed if there is any doubt about the ability to fully mitigate any risk
associated with hosting “extremist” speakers.’440 Despite suggestions that ‘anti-
extremism policy is not limiting academic freedom,’441 the prevailing view is that
the Prevent duty ‘encourages universities to have an “overanxious approach to
stopping speech for fear that it might be an indicator of a view” even where such
speech is not unlawful.’442

431 (n 89).
432 (n 3).
433 ibid.
434 ibid.
435 (n 9).
436 ibid.
437 Nicola Slawson, 'Ministers Plan Fines For Universities Which Fail To Uphold Free Speech' (the
Guardian, 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/19/ministers-plan-fines-for-
universities-which-fail-to-uphold-free-speech> accessed 1 June 2018.
438 (n 89).
439 (n 3).
440 ibid.
441 'Prevent Is No Threat To Free Speech On Campus' (Times Higher Education (THE), 2018)
<https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/prevent-no-threat-free-speech-campus> accessed
1 June 2018.
442 (n 3).