Share this page
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Rate this post

Statement from Bindmans Solicitors, ‘In this Judicial review case the Court has found that there is an arguable case on behalf of Dr Butt.  Dr Butt challenged the government which dubbed him as an “extremist” and “hate speaker”.  Dr Butt had no right of reply. This is in breach of the rules of natural justice and unlawful.’

Saimo Chahal QC (Hon), Partner of Bindmans LLP, acting for Dr Butt said:

Dr Butt’s case is a test case and the first of its kind to look in depth at the Prevent Duty Guidance in general and specifically for higher education institutions. It is has been impossible for the Government to arrive at a credible definition of “extremism” which works in practise and targets the mischief that it is aiming at. The Government’s view that there is an escalator which starts with religious conservatism and ends with violent extremism is not proven. Innocent people like Dr Butt are being drawn into the net and targeted – this is neither fair, just, nor acceptable. There is widespread criticism of the Prevent guidance including by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This case highlights all of these difficulties. click here

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •