It looks like the Nigel Farage – Coutts saga is drawing to a close. It began with Nigel Farage claiming that his account with the bank had been closed because of his political views. The bank claimed that it was because he dd not meet their financial thresholds but leaked documents showed that in that they had been concerned about their reputation because of things Farage had said and done as well as people he had associated with. If their concerns were correct and valid then they would have gone beyond mere political opinions.
In a further twist, though maybe not a final one, the CEO of the bank’s owners, NatWest has now apologised to Farage and said that comments made about him by Coutts employees were inappropriate and unacceptable.
Now, the narrative has been painted in terms of rights and freedoms, especially by those from the libertarian end of the spectrum and from Christians concerned about how such a case may set a precedent for censorship and coercion. However, it is worth noting a few other things about the story that don’t seem to have been picked up on.
First, banks are private organisations. Yes, there’s questions about what freedoms we as individuals have, whether we are public and prominent individuals or not when it comes to thoughts and speech. Are my beliefs and words going to be monitored and controlled by thought police. However, there is a question about what we are free to do, whether individually or as parts of organisations such as businesses or clubs.
It is important to clarify something here. I’ve seen some discussion about whether or not Coutts acted illegally by discriminating against Nigel Farage. Was this a breach of the Equal Opportunities Act. A careful reading of that Act would suggest not. Really the 2010 Act is not to do with preventing us from discriminating as making it clear that some forms of discrimination are unacceptable and seeking to protect certain categories of people. The Act doesn’t ban discrimination indiscriminately but lists the particular types of discrimination that are not allowed. Protetcted categories include race, gender and sexual orientation.
So, the question I asked the other day is whether or not we are free to make decisions about who we associate with and do business with. If we believe that we should be, then we have to accept that our other freedoms are not absolute. I’m of course to say whatever I like but I need to recognise that there may be consequences if others are free to respond as they wish to what I’ve said.
Secondly, the Nat West CEO has made it clear that they consider the words of Coutts employees to be unacceptable and are reviewing their actions. Yet, if those employees really believed what they said about Nigel Farage, then didn’t they have freedom of speech in order to express their opinions. What we’ve highlighted here is that we do accept limits and constraints on speech. There are contexts when it is inappropriate and unacceptable to say things. Not only is the implication that such words are morally and socially unacceptable but that it is permissible for others to take actions to prevent them being said in certain contexts. Coutts employees have discovered this week that their right to freedom of expression is also constrained. You can’t just go around saying whatever you like, to whoever you like, when ever you like.
Thirdly, people have been quick to describe the earlier actions of the bank as sinister. However, note that the backtracking from the NatWest CEO happened after several days of intense pressure from senior politicians and through (mainly) the right-wing press. Senior politicians from the government side even went as far as calling for NatWest’s banking licence to be revoked (apparently unconcerned about how that would affect their many customers) and cabinet ministers and the PM himself have talked about changing the law. The point being that they seem to have recognised that what Coutts did wasn’t actually illegal. I suspect that NatWest recognised that this kind of conflict would be neither good for their reputation or their commercial security after all.
What this means though is that libertarians who normally want less legislation and regulation have found themselves on the side pushing for more. It also means that the Government with support from friendly media have been able to influence and coerce. They have previous for this with a track record of pressure on courts, judges and lawyers in a way that has come across as authoritarian. Yet no one seems to be concerned about the ability of banks to function independently and without interference from politicians or the government.
It may be that we believe that the government, ministers, MPs and peers were justified in their outrage, right to say what they did and definitely should be taking action including changing the Law.. However, if we do, then we are again recognising that rights are not absolute but come with constraints.
Of course as Christians we should be recognising that this is a long way from Biblical/Gospel Freedom where we are free from slavery from sin but are to use our freedom not for our own protection and gain but to love and serve others.
Faithroots 