Democracy cannot exist without the right to free speech.
Free speech should be robustly defended as a fundamental freedom.
The National Secular Society has defended free speech from religious threats since our founding. We played an instrumental role in abolishing "blasphemy" laws in Britain, but serious concerns remain. Blasphemy laws still exist in Northern Ireland. And throughout the UK, religious fundamentalists seek to impose their blasphemy taboos on others through violence and intimidation.
There are also increasing attempts to categorise offending religious sensibilities as 'hate speech', making criticism, mockery or perceived 'insult' of religion a criminal act akin to racial hatred or inciting violence – in other words, a 'blasphemy law by the back door'.
Without free speech no search for truth is possible; without free speech no discovery of truth is useful; without free speech progress is checked… Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.
We are further concerned by a developing 'culture of offence' in which any speech or action deemed likely to offend religious sensibilities is considered taboo. Enforced by a toxic mix of terrorism and religious deference, this is chilling free speech through self-censorship.
We also campaign against blasphemy laws around the world, where they continue to be used to target religious and political minorities. These are sometimes described by UK politicians as 'misuse' of blasphemy laws, but we contend there are never any legitimate uses for blasphemy laws.
Being offended from time to time is the price we all pay for living in a free society. Rather than trying to silence those we disagree with, we believe the answer to speech we don't like is more speech – better speech.
We therefore campaign to protect and preserve freedom of expression, including offensive, critical and shocking speech.
What you can do
1. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
2. Join us
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
EU Commissioner says blasphemy laws are undesirable in the EU, but it’s up to individual states to decide whether they implement them
Posted: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:37
The EU Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Vivianne Reding, has said that blasphemy laws and other such restrictions are not acceptable and pose a threat to free speech.
She made her comments in answer to a parliamentary question from Dutch MEP Sophie in 't Veld (who is also an NSS honorary associate) and three others, Joanna Senyszyn, Cornelis de Jong and Marietje Schaake. They asked:
The recent wave of violence in the Muslim world following the online posting of a video depicting Mohammed has led numerous EU leaders to defend freedom of expression and opinion against accusations of blasphemy. At the same time, in the EU, some Member States still have and implement blasphemy laws, as demonstrated by the recent arrest of a 27-year-old man by the Greek authorities(1) and the prosecution of an artist by the Spanish authorities for a work he produced decades ago(2).
The Venice Commission, in its report of 23 October 2010, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in its Recommendation 1805 (2007) of 29 June 2007, pointed out that blasphemy laws are still in place in a minority of EU Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands) and are rarely implemented, and that something similar to blasphemy — 'religious insult' — is still an offence in a large number of Member States (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia). Both the Venice Commission and the Parliamentary Assembly recommended abolishing the offences of blasphemy and of insult to religious feelings, in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR(3), which are also mirrored in Articles 11 and 10 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law'.
1. Does the Commission consider that laws against blasphemy and religious insult are contrary to freedom of expression?
2. Does the Commission consider that the arrest and conviction of EU citizens on charges of blasphemy is compatible with the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
3. Does the Commission call for the abolition of blasphemy laws in its external policies?
4. Will the Commission advocate a worldwide ban on blasphemy laws within international organisations such as the UN?
5. How will the Commission ensure that freedom of expression cannot be restricted by laws against blasphemy and religious insult both within and outside the EU?
Ms Reding, answering on behalf of the European Commission, said:
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, according to Article 51 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. When enacting or maintaining national blasphemy laws the Member States concerned do not act in the course of implementation of EU law. In that matter it is thus for these Member States alone to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights – as resulting from international agreements and from their internal legislation – are respected.
As regards the EU's external policy, the Council expressed in its November 2009 conclusions its deep concern that in countries that have legislation on defamation of religions, such legislation has often been used to mistreat religious minorities and to limit freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. The Council furthermore underlined that no restrictions in the name of religion may be placed on those rights and that religion may never be used to justify or condone the restriction or violation of individual rights.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "This seems like a very complacent answer. On the one hand Ms Reding says that the EU can't stop states within the union bringing in and enforcing blasphemy laws, but they are highly undesirable outside the EU. Why does she think the effects on free speech are different in Europe than anywhere else? These laws are misused just as much in European states as they are in Muslim ones."
Source: European Parliament; Parliamentary questions; Subject: Blasphemy laws within the European Union
Victory for free speech as Government accepts reform of section 5
Posted: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:39
In a major victory for freedom of expression, Home Secretary Theresa May has bowed to the inevitable and agreed to accept a House of Lords amendment removing the word "insulting " from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 has a low prosecution threshold and there have been prosecutions for ridiculously trivial remarks made in public.
Speaking during the 2nd reading of the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary backed down and accepted, on the basis of information from the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the word insulting should be removed. The DPP had advised her that all recent prosecutions could also have been made using the "abusive" provision, which still remains as part of Section 5.
The Home Secretary's decision to accept the Lords' amendment may well have been influenced by the routing of the Government in the upper House when the matter was debated in December. Peers voted for the removal of "insulting", by 150 votes to 54, despite opposition from the Conservative and Labour frontbenches. It was the lowest pro-government vote in this Parliament. This followed intense lobbying by the Reform Section 5 campaign led by the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society. Major supporters included Rowan Atkinson and Peter Tatchell.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, who has been active in the campaign to make this change, said: "We congratulate the Home Secretary for removing a much-abused catch-all provision where the police could seemingly arrest and charge anyone that irritated them for using trivial or mocking words. The police did not even need to identify the victim that allegedly had been insulted, leaving the whole thing open to misuse. This is a welcome victory for freedom of expression.
"One such 'insult' was a student telling a policeman his horse was gay, and another student's banner claiming 'Scientology is a dangerous cult'. The change should also prevent street evangelists preaching against homosexuality being arrested and charged. We've said all along that free speech is not free unless it is for everyone – even those we don't agree with."
The campaign had the effect of bringing together under one umbrella the unlikely partnership of The National Secular Society and the Christian Institute. Keith Porteous Wood said: "As secularists we are not anti-religious and we will work with Christians or any other religious group when our aims are in accord."
See also: How a pantomime horse helped secure Section 5 victory
