It was fitting that over the Christmas period the British Universities Minister Jo Johnson chose the Jewish Limmud festival to talk about the increasing problems facing free debate in Britain’s universities. This is because the Limmud Festival is an event that prides itself on being both religiously non-sectarian and also on being a place where a variety of different views, both political and religious, can be aired in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Mr Johnson quite rightly chose an event known for its culture of free speech to talk about the issue of free speech in education.

Although I was delighted to hear that Mr Johnson was stepping up to defend the concept of open debate in our universities, there were aspects of the speech that cause me to believe that this was a bit of a ‘curate’s egg‘ of a speech, i.e. one that was good in parts but bad in others. Mr Johnson’s speech to Limmud decried the rise of speech codes in British universities and the practise of ‘no platforming’ speakers that left wing student activists did not like. He was correct in telling the audience, both at Limmud and in the country as a whole, that no platforming policies stifle debate. He was also right when he declared that students should be exposed to a diversity of opinions and not just the Leftist opinions that have become the only ones allowed to be expressed in Britain’s higher education establishments.

Mr Johnson also pointed out that universities that do not support free speech need to face punishment for creating the ‘safe space’ environments that rob students of the right to hear opposing views. Words are not violence whatever the academic Left may say and it is a basic human right to be able to express an opinion even if someone finds it offensive. Hearing offensive stuff and either ignoring it or challenging it is an important way for young people to learn resilience. Protecting young people from those who say offensive things creates individuals who are as fragile as snowflakes when they get into the real world as opposed to the protected world of school and university.

But, now we need to come to the rotten part of Mr Johnson’s egg. He said that new government Office for Students will defend ‘free speech within the law’. Now the idea of ‘free speech within the law’ is no real big issue for citizens of countries like the United States of America that have the concept of free speech fixed as part of their constitution. Unfortunately ‘free speech within the law’ takes on a whole different meaning in countries like the United Kingdom where free speech is not guaranteed. In Britain, which ironically was one of the nations that gave the world the concept of the right of the British subject to speak freely is heavily curtailed by oppressive ‘hate speech’ laws.

Despite Mr Johnson’s admittedly impressive speech and despite the creation of a government quango to promote free speech in universities I believe that little will change. This is because of the existence of censorious ‘hate speech’ laws will trump any university free speech policy that may be implemented. Left wing academics and leftist student activists will still be able to point to and use legislation such as the various public order acts and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 in order to ‘no platform’ speakers they do not like. The academics and students may well ignore the free speech clause inserted into this act by the House of Lords when it passed through there, and use the more punitive and censorious parts of the 2006 Act to bully opposing speakers and opposing groups.

I’d like to think that Mr Johnson’s speech did herald a new dawn for free speech in our universities and that students will be exposed, as they should be, to a diversity of views and opinions, but I’m not that naïve. This was a good sounding speech and several groups and individuals have done well out of it. Limmud has done well as it has raised the event’s profile and Mr Johnson and his speechwriters have scored a bit of a win because of the publicity that the speech has gained. But, as for whether Mr Johnson’s words will make a difference to free speech culture or whether they are just sound and fury signifying nothing, only time will tell. Until Britain gets a similar free speech protection to that which the citizens of the United States have and as long as ‘hate speech’ laws remain on the books, this will continue to be a nation where people look over their shoulders before they speak. It’s unlikely that this conservative in name only government will defend or enhance freedom of speech and therefore Mr Johnson’s words will have little or no effect on how free British people are to express their opinions. Although I welcome moves to improve free speech in British universities it is an endeavour doomed to failure whilst the legislative pillars of censorship such as the ‘hate speech’ laws remain standing.