Speake for England, Martin!

Martin Speake is a distinguished composer, saxophonist, and educator with more than 50 years of experience in jazz. Throughout his illustrious career, he has inspired generations of musicians, creating a pedagogic framework that champions free expression and creative self-discovery. From protesting against the National Front in 1977 to co-organising “Long Tones for Peace” at London’s Union Chapel — a global call for peaceful co-existence — Martin has always stood for the equality and dignity of all human beings.

In short, he’s the last person you’d expect to see branded “far-right”. Even Sir Keir Starmer, in one of his more sanctimonious moments, might hesitate. But in March 2024, Martin’s career was thrown into turmoil by a single act of intellectual honesty.

Responding to a request for feedback on “anti-racism” policies at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance (TL) — an essentially contested concept heavily influenced by Critical Race Theory (CRT) — Martin shared his views on systemic inequality within the UK jazz scene. As you might imagine, his views were grounded in extensive academic expertise and decades of professional experience.

In his email, Martin expressed his belief that CRT is divisive and argued that open dialogue should replace the polarising narratives often promoted by its proponents. Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., he underscored the importance of judging people “not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”.

Drawing on his own experiences in the sector, Martin noted that black jazz musicians had “far more opportunities than many others, as funding bodies, media, promoters, and festivals are biased in this way”.

He went on to say: “If there is systemic bias in Britain which discriminates against one race over others, it is against white people… By constantly emphasising that blacks are discriminated against, institutional racism (which does not exist in the jazz world, apart from maybe against whites now in certain areas of promotion), and are underdogs, deprived of opportunities etc., this encourages the victim mentality and is untrue.”

A well-reasoned intervention, you might think — especially considering the recent Employment Tribunal ruling in the case of Free Speech Union (FSU) member Sean Corby, which affirmed that opposition to CRT constitutes a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”). While this ruling emerged from the specific context of an Employment Tribunal, it’s an important precedent that reinforces the legal protections around philosophical beliefs, especially those challenging dominant ideologies.

And yet, rumours about Martin’s email quickly spread among the student body. Faced with intense backlash, TL chose to distance itself from him. In what seemed like a performative gesture of appeasement, the Conservatoire suspended his teaching. Rather than fostering a constructive dialogue or defending Martin’s right to hold “colour-blind” views, TL then pressured him to consent to the circulation of his email across the entire jazz department. Predictably, this only fuelled further anger from activist students, leading to widespread public condemnation of his views.

The situation soon escalated into a full-blown campaign to “cancel” Martin. Students boycotted his classes. Concerts were cancelled. Collaborations were severed. Bands refused to play his compositions, and even the release of his new album was shelved.

One particularly troubling episode occurred when a petition was launched by a “distressed student”, demanding Martin’s immediate removal from his position. The petition claimed that Martin’s email “perpetuated harmful and defamatory narratives about black musicians in the jazz industry” and accused him of creating an “uncomfortable and distressing learning environment”. Pass the smelling salts, dearie. 

Perhaps most telling of all was the response from Noel Langley, co-founder of the London Jazz Orchestra, who was among those who severed ties with Martin. Langley condemned parts of Martin’s email as “racist” and “disgusting”, accusing him of peddling “far-right conspiracy theories”. Langley went on to claim that 19 out of 20 members of the orchestra no longer wanted to share a stage with Martin. The language — and body language — of moral condemnation, akin to that used during historical witch hunts, was now in full force.

For Martin, the emotional toll was devastating. Forced to take extended sick leave due to the stress of ostracism, he returned to work in September 2024, only to find no respite. Harassment persisted, and his working environment became intolerable. In November 2024, shortly after students launched a boycott of his classes, Martin resigned from TL, unable to remain in an institution that had so blatantly disregarded his academic freedom and freedom of expression.

Speaking to The Times about his ordeal in January 2025, Martin said he believed many students are now “scared s***less to go against the prevailing culture on campus, while colleagues and musicians are “scared of losing their job and mortgage” if they appear to support him.

Reflecting on the broader implications for the art form he has dedicated his life to, he added: “Friends I have known for 30 or 40 years, I haven’t heard from them.” Martin also noted the dark irony that, despite jazz being rooted in the principles of artistic and social resistance and intimately tied to the US civil rights movement, his own rights are “not recognised at all here”.

“The people involved in this art form in the UK are a joke to me now,” he went on to say. “It’s very disturbing.”

The situation Martin faced is a stark illustration of the growing conflict between what we might call an “equalities mindset”, which places overwhelming emphasis on protecting individuals or groups from perceived “harm”, “hate”, or “offence” — and the more nuanced, legally grounded understanding of free speech, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This right to freedom of expression is incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which mandates that public authorities, including educational institutions, act in a way that is compatible with the rights protected under the ECHR.

However, when provisions of the EqA are misapplied, or “gold-plated”, the scope for lawful free expression inevitably narrows. While the HRA guarantees the protection of free speech, the undue prioritisation of equality concerns — without sufficient regard for the legal safeguards around free expression — has the effect of silencing dissenting voices, particularly those who challenge or critique prevailing orthodoxy.

“Anti-racism” initiatives like those implemented at TL, which are heavily influenced by CRT, exemplify these risks. While at the “upstream” level of theorisation, such ideas may represent a well-meaning but misguided attempt to shield historically oppressed minorities from “harm”, “unconscious biases”, or “microaggressions”, they often take on a very different character further downstream. In the hands of the HR officers, EDI staff, and activist employees or third-party trainers who operationalise these ideas in polices and codes of practice, dissent is too often framed not as intellectual disagreement but as moral failure.

This toxic mix of bureaucratically sanctioned proceduralism and age-old methods of stigmatisation and “out-grouping” creates a powerful dynamic. Dissenters are swiftly cast as appalling individuals who must be silenced because, well… who but the most callous “white supremacist” would oppose protecting minorities from harm, right?

Take Martin’s case as an example. His views on systemic inequality in jazz — rooted in decades of expertise and, dare we say, “lived experience” — were not merely dismissed as academic disagreement. Instead, they were framed as a direct threat to TL’s acceptable, “Right Side of History” #bekind worldview.

What’s so troubling, and what Martin’s case makes vividly clear, is the shift that takes place when the equality mindset gains the upper hand: from intellectual challenge to moral condemnation; from empirical scepticism to theological certainty; and from open debate to unquestioning conformity. Differences of opinion are eclipsed, giving way to a new form of ideological zealotry, complete with all the trappings of a modern-day inquisition.

As anyone who’s been on the wrong end of a workplace HR investigation or suffered the quiet brutality of office ostracism for something they’ve said will know, the process itself becomes the punishment. But where once this process was simply about “othering” those deemed “wrong”, or snubbing them while like-minded colleagues gathered at the water cooler, today it’s about something far more sinister: actively erasing, excommunicating, exiling. What the all-conquering equalities mindset begets is a purging process designed to root out those deemed dangerous, ensuring both the sanctity of the workplace and the ideological purity of the remaining workforce.

Still, while these trends reveal how easily free speech protections can be overridden in practice, the law thankfully provides an important counterbalance, ensuring that those willing and able to stand their ground have a means to fight back. That’s because the EqA provides a crucial safeguard against the silencing of dissenting voices: protection for philosophical beliefs. Under this legislation, individuals are protected from discrimination or harassment based on beliefs that meet specific criteria, including being worthy of respect in a democratic society and not conflicting with the rights of others.

As the case of Sean Corby demonstrated, philosophical opposition to ideologies like CRT can qualify as a protected belief. This means that individuals like Martin have a legal right to express such views without fear or professional reprisal, even when — especially when — they challenge politically divisive and contested theoretical frameworks.

So while Martin’s career may have been irreparably damaged, his fight to defend free speech is far from over. With the support of the FSU, he is fighting to assert these rights. You can find out more about his case and support his legal battle here. Martin has filed legal claims against Trinity Laban for discrimination and harassment under the EqA, as well as for constructive dismissal. While the legal outcome remains uncertain, Martin’s case undoubtedly has the potential to set an important precedent for protecting free speech in workplaces across the country.