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
Plans on ‘stirring up hatred’ threaten free expression, warn MSPs
Posted: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:01
MSPs from across the political spectrum have warned that a bill on hate crime in Scotland poses a threat to freedom of expression during a debate at Holyrood.
On Wednesday MSPs from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats strongly criticised the bill's provisions on 'stirring up hatred', reflecting concerns raised by the National Secular Society and many others.
Some backbench MSPs from the governing SNP also raised concerns about the current drafting of the bill within their contributions.
Before the debate NSS chief executive Stephen Evans was among signatories to a letter from the Free to Disagree campaign, which urged MSPs to oppose the 'stirring up' offences.
But a bid to force the government to remove the bill and work to redraft hate crime legislation, led by the Scottish Conservatives, was voted down.
The bill will now move forward for scrutiny from the Scottish parliament's justice committee, which recently held a consultation on it.
Contributions to the debate
Opening the debate, Conservative MSP Liam Kerr called the bill "vague in the extreme", adding: "Bad legislation is not the way to stop bad behaviour."
Meanwhile his colleague Murdo Fraser warned the bill could lead to the prosecution of those who published cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad – a point he also made in The Scotsman this week.
Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur said the bill needs "urgent and, in places, radical surgery" and that it risks "creating a catch-all offence with the genuine potential to catch all".
Labour's Mary Fee said negatively impacting the right to free speech "is a line that no democratic government should cross" and the relevant part of the bill appeared to "create more problems than it tries to solve".
SNP MSP Ruth Maguire said the bill could "seriously hinder important discourse about emotive subjects such as religion, race and sexual identity, halting progress and stifling free expression".
Justice secretary Humza Yousaf, who introduced the bill, said it was "important" that it was not withdrawn. But he also gave an "absolute assurance for the record" that he was "actively looking" to see where compromise could be found.
Several MSPs also spoke in support of a provision to repeal Scotland's blasphemy law, which appears elsewhere in the bill and which the NSS supports.
NSS response
After the debate Mr Evans said it had "again highlighted the mounting concern over the Scottish government's plans on 'stirring up hatred'".
"A broad range of civil society groups and now MSPs with very varied political outlooks have warned that the current drafting of the relevant section of this bill risks undermining freedom of expression.
"The justice committee must now note the deluge of criticism which the 'stirring up' provisions in this bill have faced, and recommend that they are scrapped or very significantly amended to protect free speech."
Notes
- The justice committee has said its consultation on the bill had received an "unprecedented" response, with almost 2,000 written submissions.
- During the debate Labour MSP Alex Rowley noted that the NSS had described the new provisions as "unnecessary" in its submission to the consultation.
- The NSS's position on the bill, including support for provisions which would repeal Scotland's blasphemy law, is outlined in full on its campaign page.
- The NSS is among supporters of the Free to Disagree campaign, which is warning that the bill poses a threat to freedom of speech.
Ditch ‘stirring up’ offences in hate crime bill, say NSS and others
Posted: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:39
The National Secular Society and others have told Scotland's justice secretary of "grave reservations" over the inclusion of 'stirring up hatred' offences in the Scottish government's current hate crime bill.
The NSS is among members of the Free to Disagree campaign who signed a letter to Humza Yousaf last Friday, urging him to abandon the relevant part of the bill.
The current drafting of part two of the bill would see people convicted of an offence if their behaviour is judged "threatening or abusive" and intended or "likely" to stir up hatred.
'Outpouring of anxiety'
The letter said the "outpouring of anxiety" about part two had been "overwhelming" in recent months, citing objections from a wide variety of groups and from across the political spectrum.
It noted concerns over the fact there is no requirement to prove intent for a conviction, and over the inclusion of the word "abusive" alongside "threatening".
It also criticised the absence of "suitably robust free speech clauses" and noted the "difficulty of defining" hatred to a criminal law standard.
The NSS raised very similar concerns in its submission to a recent consultation held by the Scottish parliament's justice committee.
Necessity of new offences is unclear
The letter added that it was unclear why the new stirring up offences are necessary, and noted an incongruity between a memorandum accompanying the bill and a statement from Yousaf in parliament.
The memo says the conduct affected "would already constitute existing criminal offences". But in parliament last week Yousaf said the bill would ensure "sufficient protection is provided" and he would "make sure that the bill is effective".
The letter said: "Either the bill extends the reach of the criminal law or it does not. Of course, the reality is that Part 2 does, indeed, extend the reach of the law – and extends it far too much."
It urged the minister to "bolster the implementation of laws already on the statute book" rather than introducing "wide-ranging and unpredictable stirring-up laws".
And it added that other aspects of the bill would "achieve broad support" if part two were abandoned. A separate part of the bill would allow for tougher sentences to be imposed when crimes are motivated by bigotry.
Polling suggests public disquiet over bill
Meanwhile, polling commissioned by Free to Disagree has suggested there are significant levels of public opposition to the crucial parts of the bill in Scotland.
The poll, which was carried out by Sevanta ComRes, found:
- 69% of Scots agreed that "for a criminal offence to be committed, there must be a proven intention to stir up hatred".
- 75% of respondents thought the term "hatred" means "different things to different people".
- 87% thought free speech is an "important right".
- 63% thought disagreement and debate "benefit society".
- 73% agreed that disagreement is not a sign of hatred.
NSS comment
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans, who signed the letter on the society's behalf, said ministers should now "radically rethink this piece of legislation".
"The vaguely drafted section of the bill on 'stirring up hatred' presents a significant threat to freedom of expression. It's faced criticism from a very wide range of groups and now appears to be very unpopular with the Scottish public.
"Ministers should now either remove the relevant section of the bill or radically amend it to place a much greater premium on free speech."
Signs of a possible compromise
Earlier this month Yousaf said he would give "serious consideration" to a warning from a coalition of public figures that the bill would undermine free expression.
Update, 28 August - further relevant developments this week
The first minister Nicola Sturgeon faced questions about the bill in parliament this week, as Labour MSP James Kelly highlighted concerns about freedom of expression.
You can watch the exchange on Free to Disagree's Facebook page, and read more about it in a press release from the campaign.
Meanwhile Free to Disagree has also criticised ministers for using the existence of 'stirring up hatred' offences elsewhere in the UK to justify the bill.
The NSS and others have repeatedly highlighted several significant ways in which Scotland's bill would be more censorious than equivalent legislation in England and Wales.
