The UK High Court has dismissed challenges to guidance issued by the Home Office aimed at preventing extremism is universities.
In 2015, a guidance was issued to universities listing the names of ‘hate speakers’ who were appearing in events across campuses. The claimant, Dr Butt, was one such speaker who was attributed to expressing views that were contrary to British values. Dr Butt was said to hold conservative religious views and was editor of a website called Islam21C, described as “Articulating Islam in the 21 Century.” Dr Butt argued that the guidance was in breach of the rules of natural justice and his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Under Article 10 freedom of expression, the Court found that the claimant had no right to enter any university premises for his own purposes, and had no right to be invited. Further, he did not provide evidence of any invitation to speak from universities that have been withdrawn as a result of the guidance – although some he did decline of his own volition. For this reason, he could not claim interference with his rights merely because he was part of a group which could be affected. Equally, the claimant faced no threat to his livelihood, person or family.
The Court refused to consider whether the guidance was incompatible with Article 10 in the absence of a particular set of circumstances. The Court did believe that the guidance held the legitimate aim of preventing people being drawn in to terrorism, in a bid to protect national security.
In terms of the claimant’s right to privacy under Article 8, and the collection of information on his activities by the Home Office, the Court found that there was no breach as these were not private views, as the claimant engaged in wide-ranging public debate. The assessment of his activities as ‘extremist’, whether right or wrong, was equally seen not be an interference, and all found to be justified as legitimate by the Court.
Click here for the judgment in Butt v State Secretary for the Home Department.