Restore Britain councillor’s free speech motion sparks row

Lewis Smith, Local Democracy Reporter

A row over free speech erupted during a council meeting after a councillor tabled a motion condemning political intimidation and attempts to silence opposing views.

Members of Bridgend County Borough Council clashed during a debate on a motion brought forward by Restore Britain councillor Owain Clatworthy, who said it was intended to address what he described as a “growing culture of intimidation, political abuse and hostility towards people who hold different views”.

The motion, discussed at a full council meeting, called on the authority to condemn all forms of political violence, intimidation, harassment and attempts to silence lawful democratic expression.

It also requested they reaffirm the council’s support for freedom of speech, open debate, and democratic participation – encouraging elected members to promote respectful conduct online and in public meetings.

Councillor Martyn Jones said he welcomed the motion adding that he was sad to see that behaviour had deteriorated to the level where people were loath to identify themselves as elected members.

The council’s deputy leader Cllr Jane Gebbie said she also supported the move, putting forward an amendment with an additional point.

This added any allegation of a member knowingly or recklessly spreading misinformation or disinformation be referred to the monitoring officer for formal consideration of potential breaches of the Nolan Pprinciples of public life.

She felt this would strengthen the initial motion by recognising that misinformation and disinformation can be just as damaging to public trust as intimidation and abuse.

She said: “Free speech is strengthened when debate is based on fact, honesty, and accountability. If we are prepared to condemn intimidation harassment and attempts to silence others then we should also be prepared to hold ourselves to the highest standards of conduct and truthfulness.”

A second amendment was also proposed by councillor Ross Penhale-Thomas who said they should recognise that the right to freedom of speech came with responsibilities with elected members using care, respect, and making sure language did not inflame division or contribute to the environment they aimed to address.

The council’s largest independent group said they would support the second amendment made by Cllr Penhale-Thomas though rejected the first as they were concerned over the definition of misinformation, which could punish councillors for unintentionally giving incorrect information or advice.

The council’s leader John Spanswick said he felt they were conflating information flow or a lack of information with misinformation and disinformation.

Cllr Jon Paul Blundell said he supported both amendments stating that they had a duty to lead by example and had to do better.

Virtue signalling

While speaking to the chamber he claimed there were cases where unnamed councillors had accused the authority of virtue signalling when they changed their social media profile pictures to incorporate the Pride flag and even shared posts saying: “Why do you ask me to press one for English then put bin Laden’s sister on the phone?”

Cllr Clatworthy responded to this with a point of order to clarify the latter post had not been made by him.

He also rejected both of the proposed amendments to his initial motion, saying the language was too vague and amounted to free speech policing that turned political debate in to potential conduct complaints – with rules for genuine misconduct already in place.

Following the debate and a vote members agreed to pass the motion along with the two proposed amendments.