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
Brewery: we took down Saudi flag from pubs to avoid offence
Posted: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:49
A brewery which instructed thousands of pubs to take down the Saudi Arabian flag from World Cup displays has told the National Secular Society it acted to avoid causing offence.
Earlier this month Greene King said it had decided to remove the Saudi flag from bunting put up to mark the tournament, which is currently taking place in Russia. It said displaying the flag would be "inappropriate as it contains the religiously significant Islam shahada in Arabic".
The brewery said it had received complaints from "some customers in London" over the display of the shahada (a declaration of faith) in a place where alcohol was sold.
In response the NSS wrote to Greene King and Mitchells and Butlers, which also instructed its pubs to take down the flag a few days later.
Greene King has now replied to say the brewery's intention was "to celebrate the World Cup and not to offend anybody".
"Our decision to remove the Saudi Arabia flag was made following feedback from customers that it was offensive for the Saudi Arabia flag to be displayed at a venue where alcohol was served.
"We took this decision to avert any further offence being caused and believe it was the correct decision.
"It is not our place to pass comment on any nation or wider religious discussions and debates. Everyone is welcome at Greene King and our customers are as diverse as our 40,000 colleagues.
"We are looking to celebrate the World Cup and as a customer-facing business we responded when we received customer feedback that pointed out facts of which we were not previously aware.
"We continue to celebrate the World Cup and the international spirit it demonstrates."
Mitchells & Butlers has yet to reply to the NSS. Earlier this month it said on Twitter that it had removed the flag "as it is inappropriate to display where alcohol is being sold".
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans called the breweries' decision "spineless" and Greene King's explanation "contradictory".
"The breweries have given some of the most zealous religious believers a veto over the use of a flag.
"Greene King has said it is not its place to pass comment on religious debates. This is a remarkable statement because that was exactly what it did. It chose to remove one of the 32 competing nations' flags and justified its decision by pontificating about what may or may not be appropriate within Islamic tradition.
"Our society will be in trouble if companies make it the norm to acquiesce to unreasonable demands like this. If we don't defend free expression, we lose it – and we all have a stake in making sure that doesn't happen."
Greene King owns more than 3,100 pubs in England, Wales and Scotland. Mitchells & Butlers operates more than 1,700 pubs and restaurants across the UK.
Last month a German brewery, Eichbaum, withdrew a marketing campaign featuring the World Cup participants' flags on beer bottle caps after complaints that the Saudi flag should not appear on beer bottles.
Read more: It shouldn't be normal for pubs to conform to blasphemy codes, an NSS blog by Chris Sloggett.
US secularist groups condemn travel ban which targets Muslims
Posted: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:44
A series of secularist and atheist groups have lined up to condemn a US Supreme Court decision upholding a travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries.
On Tuesday the court upheld a ban on travel to the US from seven countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Venezuela. Five of them are countries with majority Muslim populations.
Lower courts had ruled that the ban violated the US constitution.
The ban follows President Trump's call during the 2016 election campaign for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".
The ban is a modified version of an order Trump signed when he first took office in January 2017. Then he banned entry for 90 days to citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The order also indefinitely halted the entry of refugees from Syria.
The groups vocally opposing the court's decision have included the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the Centre for Inquiry (CfI), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and American Atheists.
On Twitter FFRF described it as "disgraceful" and in a longer press release it said the ban "blatantly disregards" the establishment clause in the first amendment of the US constitution. The clause prohibits the government from creating a law "respecting an establishment of religion".
FFRF made the same point during the case, in a brief it filed as a 'friend of the court'.
AU president Rachel Laser said: "The Supreme Court today has forsaken one of our most foundational and cherished values — that our government must never single out any one religion for discrimination. Our hearts break for the millions of Americans who, because of the Muslim ban, will continue to be separated from their loved ones."
AU has vigorously campaigned against the measure since it was first enacted.
Larry Decker, executive director of SCA, said the Supreme Court had "legitimised bigotry and threatened the rights of all Americans".
"This travel ban is nothing more than a thinly-veiled religious test and the fulfilment of President Trump's repeated pledge to institute a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States'. Any reasonable observer assessing the travel ban in light of President Trump's 2016 campaign will see it for what it is — an assertion of Christian privilege, anti-Muslim bigotry, a rebuke of our first amendment, and a grave threat to religious freedom.
"Americans of all faiths and none must recognise the danger of the majority's opinion. If the Trump administration can disparage and single out Muslims, it can do the same to any of us."
The CfI, which promotes "science, reason, critical thinking, and humanist values" and merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science in 2016, said the ban was an act of "religious discrimination".
Nick Little, CFI's vice-president, said: "As far back as 2015, Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to see Muslims banned from the United States, and promised to carry out this ban once in office. He followed through, and the Supreme Court, unconscionably, is letting him get away with it.
"Secular and religious communities alike must and will stand together to oppose religious bigotry and discrimination, especially when it emanates from the White House itself."
Ed Buckner, the interim executive director of American Atheists, said: "Singling out any group of people for disfavour, or favour, on the basis of their religious beliefs is un-American, unconstitutional, and is something that American Atheists will not stand for. Religious neutrality and equal protection under the law are the promises of our constitution, and today the Supreme Court fell far short of those promises."
Some have said the ban reveals a double standard in the Supreme Court's view of religiously-motivated lawmaking. The court recently found in favour of a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the dubious basis that a commission in the state of Colorado showed anti-Christian animus.
It based that judgement on public comments made by members of the commission. But in the case of the travel ban the majority opinion disregarded Trump's anti-Muslim comments.
The ban has sharply divided Americans along religious lines. In February 2017 a Pew survey found that a majority of Protestants in the US, including 76% of white evangelicals, supported it. Thirty-six per cent of Catholics and 24% of the religiously unaffiliated agreed.
Overall 38% of Americans approved while 59% disapproved.
