Kathleen stock

It’s not been a great new year for the Greens. From the north of Britain to the south, two examples in the past week haven’t exactly shown the party at its best. First, the Scottish Sun revealed that Lorna Slater, the co-leader north of the border, told aides she didn’t want to work every day of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow – despite billing it ‘the last chance to save the world.’ Slater, who has now been dubbed ‘Lorna Slacker,’ told government officials she didn’t want them to arrange more than ‘two things in one day’, before being snapped on the first day of COP drinking in a pub at 5 p.m.  And

The hounding of Kathleen Stock – who left Sussex university following a concerted campaign against her by trans rights activists – was a disgraceful indictment of freedom of speech on campus. But one remedy for preventing a repeat – the so-called ‘Stock amendment’ to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, now passing through the Commons – isn’t the answer. Impetuous legislation is normally bad legislation; unless we think very carefully, we may end up with something ineffective or even counter-productive. At first glance, a simple ban on students piling in to demand the sacking or departure of professors on account of their politics or teaching might look good. Indeed, it could be defended

I know what it feels like to be bullied and vilified for expressing views with which, eventually, many right-minded people end up agreeing. I am talking, of course, about transgender ideology and the case of Professor Kathleen Stock which this week was belatedly picked up by the mainstream press. In short, a group of University of Sussex students started a campaign for Stock to be sacked on the spot, claiming she was ‘espousing a bastardised version of radical feminism that excludes and endangers trans people’. The group – a collection of poundshop Antifas – said Stock was a danger to transgender people, arguing: ‘We’re not up for debate. We cannot