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
Joint Committee on Human Rights challenges the Government on ‘extremism disruption orders’
Posted: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:49
The Government has been criticised for failing to offer more detail on its long-awaited proposals for 'extremism disruption orders' – vaguely defined measures which the NSS has criticised for the damage they could cause to freedom of speech.
After receiving the Government's response to criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), Harriet Harman, who chairs the JCHR, wrote that she was disappointed the Government hadn't committed to the publication of a draft bill on the new civil orders intended to tackle non-violent extremism.
In a letter to the minister responsible for safeguarding and countering extremism, she said that it was "concerning that the Government has still not been able to identify any clear gaps in the legislative framework that any new legislation introducing civil orders is designed to fill."
The Government has promised a consultation but Harman said that "any consultation exercise which does not provide a clear legal definition of what is meant by extremism (and in particular non-violent extremism) would be futile."
She concluded that "it is perhaps unfortunate to announce a Bill in two successive Queen's Speeches which has not been fully thought through in advance."
When security minister Karen Bradley MP appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) she gave what campaigners called a "baffling array of definitions" for what the Government meant by extremism.
The Conservative Government initially proposed 'extremism disruption orders' (EDOs) after the measures had been blocked by the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Their stated purpose is to tackle 'non-violent extremism' but the Government has been unable to offer a clear definition of the 'extremism' that the EDOs would counter.
In a report on the proposals written in July, the Committee concluded that the Government appeared to have "retreated from its original proposals for Banning Orders, Closure Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders".
In response to the JCHR's report the Government said that: "The proposed civil order powers, announced in this year's Queen's Speech, are concerned with a small number of the most serious cases where extremists' behaviour threatens others and causes real harm both to individuals and communities.
"The Government will consult fully on any proposed measures, including civil orders, before they are introduced. Any consultation will set out any gaps in existing legislation that new powers are intended to fill."
The Government said its proposals would extend to "tackling all the harms extremists contribute to."
NSS spokesperson, Benjamin Jones, commented: "We await the Government's consultation but that will be a meaningless exercise unless it sets out exactly what the new orders are, how they will be activated, and unless the Government actually defines 'extremism'.
"Without a definition of 'non-violent extremism' any new measures seriously risk infringing upon freedom of expression."
A broad coalition including the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute are opposed to the controversial proposals.
The JCHR also commented on Government plans to regulate out of school educational settings providing "intensive tuition, training or instruction to children" – a move welcomed by the NSS.
The Government said that currently "the safeguards which protect children in schools and childcare settings are not mandatory in out of school settings, and children are more vulnerable to harm."
"Our proposals to regulate them are therefore aimed at ensuring that action can be taken where there are genuine concerns that they are failing to ensure the safety and welfare of children."
The Committee warned that there were "grave concerns around Government proposals for a regime of compulsory registration" but the Government argued that it was considering how to ensure its proposals were "targeted" and "proportionate".
Press regulator sides with free speech in ruling on The Sun’s hijab article
Posted: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:10
The press regulator IPSO has cleared Kelvin MacKenzie over an article in The Sun which asked why Channel 4 had "a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice".
In July Kelvin MacKenzie wrote of Channel 4's coverage of the Nice attack: "The presenter was not one of the regulars — Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Matt Frei or Cathy Newman — but a young lady wearing a hijab.
"Her name is Fatima Manji and she has been with the station for four years. Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim[?]
"Of course not."
Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear said that the article amounted to religious discrimination and Manji complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Manji said that "the article had targeted her deliberately, causing her intimidation and distress, and whipping up hatred against her, and Muslims generally."
She also said that the article had "inaccurately" claimed that Islam was "a violent religion".
In response MacKenzie said that the article was not directed at Manji personally, and "was not about the propriety of a journalist having religious faith, but about the propriety of public figures wearing outwardly religious garments, in the context of a story with an unavoidable religious angle."
IPSO summarised MacKenzie's response: "The column formed part of a public debate about presenters wearing symbolic items on screen, which had previously been seen in discussions about a Channel 4 presenter's decision not to wear a poppy, and the wearing of a crucifix by a presenter on BBC News."
The Sun rejected the claim that describing Islam as a "violent religion" was inaccurate or that it violated Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice.
The press regulator then considered whether the article had breached three clauses of the Editors' Code including accuracy, harassment and discrimination.
The committee which examined the complaint found that "There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others" and that it "contained pejorative references to Islam."
However it found that the Editor's Code "prohibits prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual on account of, amongst other things, that individual's religion" but that it does not "prohibit prejudicial or pejorative references to a particular religion, even though such disparaging criticisms may cause distress and offence".
"Were it otherwise, the freedom of the press to engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices, including the wearing of religious symbols while reading the news, would be restricted."
"The columnist's view that Islam is 'clearly a violent religion' was a statement of his opinion," IPSO said.
The regulator concluded that "While the columnist's opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express."
The National Secular Society welcomed the ruling. Campaigns director Stephen Evans commented: "Whatever your opinion of the points made in his article Kelvin MacKenzie should be free to express his views. His comments clearly didn't amount to 'incitement' and we're therefore pleased to see the right to freedom of speech has won in this case."
See also: Why Ipso was correct: freedom of expression means the freedom to offend.
