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
New calls from Islamists for international blasphemy law at UN
Posted: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:55
Soon after the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) announced that it had abandoned its plans to persuade the UN to impose a global blasphemy law, the Arab League has stepped in to take up the cry.
On Wednesday, the head of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, spoke at the UN Security Council during a debate on Syria. He called on the international community to criminalise blasphemy, warning that insults to religion pose a serious threat to global peace and security.
Elaraby told the U.N. Security Council that if the west has criminalised acts that result in bodily harm, it must also criminalise acts that insult or cause offense to religions. He condemned the violence that erupted throughout the Muslim world in response to an anti-Islam film produced in theUnited States. But, he said that unless blasphemy laws are enacted and enforced, similar incidents could happen again.
"While we fully reject such actions that are not justifiable in any way, we would like to ring the warning bell," Elaraby said. "We are warning that offending religions, faiths and symbols is indeed a matter that threatens in international peace and security now."
"If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm," he said. "The League of Arab States calls for the development of an international legal framework which is binding ... in order to confront insulting religions and ensuring that religious faith and its symbols are respected."
Elaraby maintained that the 21-member Arab League valued freedom of speech but stressed that "we don't see any relation between freedom of expression which aims at enriching culture and building civilization [on] the one hand and activities that merely offend and insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others."
Individual members of the Arab League, including Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, have issued similar calls. And last Saturday, the King of Saudi Arabia joined the chorus with another demand for an international blasphemy law.
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz said: "I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets," he reportedly said. "It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets."
Abdullah also stressed the important of the "unity of the Islamic nation...to face the nation's enemies."
No religious harassment at The Times, rules tribunal
Posted: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:29
A sub-editor on The Times who was offended by a colleague shouting out an apparently derogatory comment about the Pope has lost his claim of religious harassment in the workplace.
An Employment Tribunal ruled that there was no intention to cause offence and it was not reasonable for the comment to have had the effect of creating a hostile environment.
Mr Heafield worked for The Times as a casual sub-editor. The paper was running a series of articles about allegations of child abuse, and cover-ups, in the Catholic Church. Mr Heafield – a practising Catholic – felt that the newspaper was portraying anti-Catholic feeling by running these articles.
Before being given a specific headline, all news stories would be allocated a one word working title so that a mock-up of the newspaper could be made which set out where each article would be positioned. One of the stories which The Times was working on concerned an allegation that the Pope had, in a previous role, protected a paedophile priest. This story was allocated the title 'The Pope' for the purposes of the mock-up.
As the deadline approached for the newspaper to be printed, one of Mr Heafield's colleagues realised that he had not seen the story. He shouted across the room 'Can anybody tell me what's happening to the f*** pope?' He received no response so repeated the question and raised his voice.
A couple of days later, Mr Heafield sent an email complaining that he has found the remark offensive.
Mr Heafield then brought a claim for harassment and victimisation, alleging that the comment had intended to insult his religion, even though no-one in the office knew he was Catholic.
Alternatively, even if that was not intended, the comment was very clearly anti-Catholic and therefore it was reasonable for him, as a practising Catholic, to have been insulted.
But the Tribunal found that the comment had not been intended to cause offence. The comment was not personal, and the subject of the comment was the news story, not the Pope himself; it was not reasonable for the comment to have had the effect of creating a hostile, intimidating, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for Mr Heafield, as defined in the Employment Discrimination legislation.
The Tribunal said the comment was just a 'trivial and transitory' comment. Nor was there any evidence to suggest that the comment had been made on religious grounds; there was no evidence that the individual who made the comment was using it as a precursor to create a hostile environment.
Mr Heafield's claims were dismissed.
