Is it a crime to make fun of a keffiyeh?

As much as prime minister Keir Starmer may wish to convince himself – and the public – that the UK does not have a free-speech problem, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against him.

Nowhere is Britain’s free-speech crisis more starkly exposed than in higher education. Since the start of Israel’s war with Hamas two-and-a-half years ago, we have seen academics hounded out of their jobs, students ostracised by their peers, and visiting speakers subjected to militant attempts to silence them for expressing lawful views. But the case of Brodie Mitchell is one of the most egregious examples yet.

The now 20-year-old Royal Holloway student faces the prospect of criminal prosecution after he compared a keffiyeh worn by a pro-Palestine activist student to a ‘tea towel’ during Freshers’ Fair in September last year. Mitchell made the remark to Huda El-Jamal, president of the Friends of Palestine Society, after she called him a ‘wannabe Jew’ and questioned why he was not wearing a Jewish ‘hat’, a reference to a kippah.

What began as a flippant comment – made in response to her remarks about his headgear, or lack of it – has since spiralled into something far more serious.

In a striking display of double standards, Mitchell was handed a seven-week suspension as the university launched an investigation into ‘alleged conduct that could be considered hate speech’. His comments were branded ‘Islamophobic’, ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Palestinian’. He was barred from campus and was given less than 48 hours to vacate his student accommodation. Meanwhile, El-Jamal has faced no disciplinary action.

But the most sinister development in this affair is that Surrey Police have passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This means that Mitchell – a second-year politics and law student who describes himself as a ‘non-Jewish Zionist’ – could face prosecution over a tea-towel joke. That police are intervening in a political feud between students is bad enough; that they are targeting only one student for ‘Islamophobia’ is a scandal. It would be difficult to find a better example of obviously partisan, two-tier policing.

Labour’s recent decision to adopt an official definition of Islamophobia – now repackaged as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ – means we can expect to see more of this. Since its introduction last month, there have already been attempts to weaponise it in order to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. Most notably, Conservative MP and shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy was reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, branded an ‘Islamophobe’ and a ‘racist’ and even faced calls to resign, after he criticised a mass Muslim public prayer in Trafalgar Square in March. Universities and other public bodies are now being encouraged to adopt and enforce this definition zealously, and are embedding it in their speech policies.

In a positive recent development, Royal Holloway has stopped its investigation into Mitchell and allowed him to continue his studies. The Free Speech Union (FSU) has also supported Mitchell throughout this ordeal and submitted a formal complaint to the Office for Students, the higher-education regulator, over Royal Holloway’s disgraceful conduct. The FSU has also armed Brodie with a leading legal team should the CPS decide to prosecute him.

This is the reality of free speech on English university campuses today. While we at the FSU welcome education secretary Bridget Phillipson’s recent announcement of a new free-speech complaints scheme for universities, it is far from perfect. Although it gives academics and visiting speakers the right to raise concerns about free-speech breaches directly with the Office for Students, free of charge, students have not been given the same privilege.

The message to students is clear: speak at your peril, and risk financial ruin for defending your fundamental freedoms. What better proof of this than the case of Brodie Mitchell?

Max Thompson is the campaigns officer at the Free Speech Union.