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
Tribunal sides with employer over Muslim who said request to wear shorter, ankle-length jilbab was “against her morals”
Posted: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:39
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that a Muslim woman was not discriminated against when told that her jilbab posed a tripping hazard.
A Muslim woman, named only as Ms T Begum, was offered an apprenticeship in a nursery, but was asked by a manager if she could wear a jilbab which did not extend over her feet- as it could pose a tripping hazard for children and staff.
Ms Begum had worn a jilbab during the interview which the manager said would not be suitable for working in the nursery because of its length. Instead she was asked to wear a slightly shorter garment.
Despite not objecting at the time, the claimant said that "she had been insulted" by the request and that the requirement that she wear an ankle-length jilbab, rather than one which covered her feet and touched the floor, was "against her morals and beliefs."
She claimed that she had been "discriminated against" because of her "ethnic/cultural background."
The Judge dismissed the case and noted that the woman in question "was only asked if she might wear a shorter version of the [jilbab] she wore to the interview", and was not told she could not wear the religious garment at all.
According to the ruling, "at no point was she told that she could not wear a jilbab while working at the nursery."
The Judge concluded that the policy was not "indirectly discriminatory to Muslim women" and that the health and safety policy "applied equally to staff of all religions". The Judge noted that even if the policy did "put some Muslim women at a particular disadvantage", it was a proportionate means of "protecting the health and safety of staff and children."
The ruling also pointed out the nursery employed four Muslim women who all wore hijabs, and that they were accommodated by their employer who facilitated time off for Ramadan and for prayers.
An NSS spokesperson commented, "Clearly the health and safety of staff and children is the priority here. There is not an unlimited right to manifest your religion in the workplace. The employer made a very reasonable, practical request, and we are pleased to see the Judge siding with them."
NSS criticises Tony Blair’s plans to 'entrench' religion in public life across Europe
Posted: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:23
The NSS has criticised Tony Blair's proposals ahead of his appointment as chair of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) as "ill thought out and counter-productive".
The former Prime Minister has defended proposals "lowering the barriers to what constitutes incitement to violence" and pan-European plans to make Holocaust denial illegal and to 'entrench' "state funding for religious institutions into law."
The NSS is adamant that measures such as 'group libel' would be "counter-productive, have a massive chilling effect on free speech and would be likely to restrict the open debate necessary to resolve problems."
Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said:
"Britain already has draconian legislation on religious insults – a possible seven year jail term with a low prosecution threshold. Politicians have already called for the outlawing of Islamophobia, playing into the hands of those intent on closing down honest debate about and within Islam."
"There is no need for more laws, and the ones we already have fail to adequately protect freedom of expression. A robust civil society with a deep commitment to free expression is our best hope for challenging and countering bigoted narratives and misguided views. Driving extremist views underground will only allow them to fester and allow their proponents to present themselves as martyrs."
Mr Wood continued, "Outlawing Holocaust denial completely undermines the West's defence of freedom of speech at home and abroad and removes our moral authority to propound freedom of expression abroad. No one has the right in a plural society not to be offended and ideas should not be proscribed but people should be defended from incitement to violence.
"A European-wide Holocaust denial law would be exhibit A in every response from dictators abroad - and Islamists at home - when we criticise their appalling human rights records or challenge their rhetoric and beliefs."
On proposals to require governments to provide security to synagogues and Jewish schools, Mr Wood said: "There is nothing preventing the state from providing security to places of worship where deemed necessary, appropriate and cost effective."
"However, imposing pan-European, mandatory security at all places of worship and all Jewish schools is disproportionate. While a European response to extremism is called for, EU member states face a different scale of challenges. It would not be effective to require every EU country to respond in exactly the same way to anti-Semitism when the scope and detail of the issues faced in each nation varies so much."
The NSS has also accused Mr Blair of being "confused over the role of religion".
"For Mr Blair to dismiss those intent on justifying violence in the name of religion as abusing religion and using it as a mask reveals that his enthusiasm for religion has once more led him to misunderstand one of the roots of this problem. While few would suggest that extremists' interpretations of their faith are mainstream in today's society, it is naïve and counterproductive to deny the role that such interpretations play in their religio-political motivations.
"In their eyes, which is all that matters, they are acting with greater fidelity to their religion than anyone, and all the Abrahamic religions have passages in their texts which can be used to justify such violence.
"Recognising this harsh and politically unpalatable reality is a condition precedent to even starting to solve the problem", said Mr Wood.
The NSS also criticised Mr Blair's proposal to entrench state funding for religious institutions into law.
Mr Wood said: "The state should stand separation from religious institutions – not be involved in the funding of them. It's hard to see what justification Mr Blair could have for making such a vague and deeply anti-secular proposal."
