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
Stronger free speech protection needed over hate crime bill, says NSS
Posted: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:42
The National Secular Society has urged the Scottish government to ensure freedom of expression is adequately protected after ministers hinted at possible concessions in a bill on hate crime.
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans met with government representatives on Thursday and urged them to reconsider plans to criminalise 'stirring up hatred' on various grounds, including religion.
Mr Evans warned that the vague and highly subjective wording in the bill risked chilling free speech and sending the message that the law was there to protect people from being offended.
Part of the bill, which is currently making its way through the Scottish parliament, would criminalise behaviour deemed "threatening or abusive" and intended to stir up hatred.
As part of its case the NSS argued that protections for free speech in the relevant section of the bill should be at least as strong as their equivalents in England and Wales.
A free expression clause in England and Wales's Racial and Religious Hatred Act says the law shouldn't restrict "discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents".
Currently the equivalent clause in Scotland's bill says only that behaviour will not be judged as threatening or abusive "solely on the basis that it involves or includes discussion or criticism of religion or religious practices".
Minister hints at concessions on free speech protection
This week justice secretary Humza Yousaf said he was "very actively considering both the breadth and depth" of freedom of expression clauses in the bill as he gave evidence to Holyrood's justice committee (pictured).
He said he was looking at whether the protection clauses could "go further" and said he "would anticipate some further change" later in the scrutiny process. He also noted the example from England and Wales.
The justice secretary made other relevant concessions recently as he confirmed he would lodge amendments to ensure a successful prosecution will require proof of intent.
The initial draft of the bill would have made it possible to convict someone for behaviour which was judged "likely" to stir up hatred.
Responses
Explaining the NSS's position, Mr Evans welcomed the Scottish government's "apparent willingness to take steps in the right direction" but urged it to go further.
"The best course of action remains to remove the section of this bill on 'stirring up hatred', a vague and subjective term which shouldn't be a criminal offence.
"If the Scottish government is set on introducing these offences, as a minimum it must ensure they are very narrowly defined and Scottish citizens are given at least the equivalent freedom of expression protection as their English and Welsh counterparts."
Neil Barber, the NSS's spokesperson for Scotland who also attended the meeting, said: "The vague wording of the bill means any reassurances that the legislation isn't intended to capture subjectively offensive speech will be of no comfort at all to the writer, artist or comedian who, fearing a stressful and costly court procedure, will simply avoid discussing any sensitive issue, with a resultant intimidation of free speech right from the start.
"The government must go further to ensure this bill doesn't seriously chill free speech in Scotland."
Jamie Gillies of the Free to Disagree campaign, which is campaigning to defend free expression over the bill, said amendments along the lines suggested this week would "provide much-needed reassurance".
But he added that the group still had a number of "outstanding concerns", including the use of the term "abusive" in the bill.
Free to Disagree has also warned about the lack of a defence for words spoken in the privacy of the home which are not heard or seen by anyone outside. Yousaf defended the lack of such a defence this week.
The NSS is a supporter of Free to Disagree.
The NSS's full position on the bill is outlined in a briefing on the subject
Plan to amend Scottish hate crime bill isn’t enough, says NSS
Posted: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 16:00
The National Secular Society has welcomed news that Scotland's current hate crime bill will be amended, but warned that offences within the bill remain "a menace to free and open debate".
The bill – which would criminalise 'stirring up hatred' on various grounds, including religion – has faced widespread criticism amid concerns that it would undermine freedom of expression.
In parliament today, the justice secretary Humza Yousaf (pictured) said the Scottish government would bring forward amendments to the bill. These would mean the prosecution would need to demonstrate intent to secure a conviction for 'stirring up hatred'.
He also said he was "open to consider further reforms" to protect freedom of expression, but added that scrapping the stirring up offences within the bill was "not an option".
NSS comment
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said the proposed amendment "doesn't go far enough".
"We welcome the recognition that prosecution thresholds were too low and a requirement for intent needs to be included.
"However, the stirring up offences remain unnecessary and excessive. They would unacceptably erode freedom of expression and menace free and open debate.
"We share the aspiration of building a more equal and inclusive Scotland. But without far more robust freedom of expression safeguards, this bill will seriously chill free speech."
The bill and relevant NSS campaigning
The unamended bill would have criminalised behaviour deemed to be "threatening or abusive" which was also intended or "likely" to 'stir up hatred'. Yousaf's proposed change will now remove the 'likely' threshold.
In a submission to the Scottish parliament's justice committee in July the NSS said any new offences should only cover threatening conduct, and it should be necessary for the prosecution to prove criminal intent.
It added that provisions in the bill designed to protect freedom of expression are substantially weaker than a much more robust equivalent in similar legislation in England and Wales.
And it noted that existing legislation already protects individuals from threatening and abusive behaviour likely to cause "fear or alarm".
The NSS is also a supporter of Free to Disagree, a campaign which is urging a rethink of the bill.
The justice committee recently said it had received an "unprecedented" response to a consultation on the bill, amid a backlash from police representatives, legal experts, opposition politicians, press freedom advocates and others.
Reaction at Holyrood
Responding to Yousaf's statement, the shadow justice secretary Liam Kerr said the changes "do not begin to go far enough".
Labour's Rhoda Grant also asked whether stakeholders were still concerned about freedom of expression.
