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
NSS warns of ‘de-facto’ blasphemy laws at European Parliament
Posted: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:57
The National Secular Society has raised concerns about the limits imposed on free speech by unofficial blasphemy laws enforced by the threat of violence.
At a meeting of the European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics (EPPSP) in Brussels, NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood cited polling which found that 25% of Muslims aged 18-34 disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified". He described this as a "huge challenge."
He also noted the danger of anti-blasphemy campaigns in the UN and said that secularists "ought to be aware that there has been a 15 year project by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to have defamation made an international law."
The NSS, which has long opposed any restrictions on freedom of expression on religious grounds, expressed its serious concerns in 2012 after Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who was then "Minister for Faith", signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the OIC to "work together on issue of peace, stability and religious freedom."
Keith Porteous Wood added that the West should be "very worried" by "unofficial blasphemy laws" and also raised the issue of "religious-aggravated public order offences" in the UK that have "very low prosecution thresholds but a 7 year prison term". He described the threat to free speech posed by this legislation as "poisonous" and said it was "almost worse" than explicit blasphemy laws.
Sophie in 't Veld MEP, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, who chaired the panel, said she was "against any kind of restrictions solely for the reasons of protecting or defending religion or belief".
The director of Justitia, Jacob Mchangama, said that secularists should not "appease extremism" through "misguided identity politics" and criticised the "redistribution of blame" that occurred after the Charlie Hebdo attack, and the way many commentators argued that the cartoonists were in some way to blame.
Rabbi Jonathan Romain of the Movement for Reform Judaism said that whilst "some Christians were horrified" by blasphemy like the Life of Brian, as many Muslims were by the Danish cartoons, and although "of course" religious satire causes offence, it is "one person's right to express their view, and another person's right to express that they are offended". The Rabbi argued that there were "plenty of religious targets that are worth hitting" with blasphemy and said that there is no right not to be offended.
Rabbi Romain noted that every "tyrannical regime" restricts freedom of speech. He added that free speech "enables us to expose hypocrisy" and quoted examples from scripture of blasphemy and the ridicule of religious beliefs.
He argued that "Blasphemy is in the ear of the hearer, and one person's sanctity is another person's idiocy." Rabbi Romain said restricting free speech to protect religion would be a "cost too high" and added that "freedom of speech has to be total".
Elizabeth O'Casey from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, which the NSS is affiliated with, discussed the fear of violence that was stifling free speech, particularly with regard to newspapers and other media outlets refusing to show images from Charlie Hebdo.
The full discussion can be watched here.
UPDATE: Just two days after this meeting Avijit Roy, whose Mukto-Mona (Free-mind) blog championed liberal secular writing, was murdered in Bangladesh. He had received numerous threats from Islamists. See full story.
New poll shows significant minority of UK Muslims support attacks on Charlie Hebdo
Posted: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:06
A poll of Muslim opinion in the UK has exposed a large minority who believe violence against those who depict Mohammed is justified.
10% of UK Muslims aged 18-34 agreed with the statement that "organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed deserve to be attacked". 14% of over 45s agreed, as did 7% of 35-44 year olds. Overall, 11% of UK Muslims agreed with the statement, with 85% disapproving and 3% saying they "didn't know."
Muslim men were only slightly more likely to agree with the statement than women, by 1%, with 10% of Muslim women agreeing.
The poll also revealed that over a quarter of British Muslims have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre – a finding the former faith and communities minister Baroness Warsi described as "worrying".
National Secular Society campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "These findings should concern anyone who values fundamental rights and freedoms. Like most other citizens, the vast majority of British Muslims are rightly appalled by violent reprisals for depicting Mohammed. But if 11% of Muslims think violence should be used to stifle free expression – and that Paris-style attacks are an appropriate response to cartoons, as this poll indicates, then we have a very serious problem.
"The findings also demonstrate the importance of amplifying the progressive Muslim voices that are countering poisonous narratives within the Muslim community, but which are not being sufficiently heard."
25% of Muslims aged 18-34 disagreed with the statement, "acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified". 82% of 18-34 year olds said that it is "deeply offensive" to them when images of the Prophet Mohammed were published, compared with 71% of Muslims aged over 45, perhaps offering some evidence that younger Muslims are more religious than their parents and grandparents.
30% of 18-34 year olds said they had "some sympathy for the motives" behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, whilst 24% of those over the age of 45 said the same. Almost one-third of UK Muslims agreed with the statement, "I understand the motives of those who launch attacks in the name of Islam because the religion has been insulted". 32% were not surprised that "the attacks in Paris happened".
14% said that if they could, they would leave Britain "to go and live in a Muslim country".
Opinion was divided nearly in half when respondents were asked if "Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified" were out of touch with "mainstream Muslim opinion". 49% said that they were, whilst 45% indicated that they were not.
Whilst 94% said they would report someone they knew for planning an act of violence, 5% said they would not, and 8% said that they knew "Muslims who feel strongly sympathetic towards people fighting for IS and Al-Qaeda".
The pollsters also questions respondents on other issues, and found that 17% of UK Muslims agreed that "it is appropriate that Muslims who convert to other religions are cut off by their family".
Two-thirds of respondents disagreed when asked if they would like their children "to go to a Muslim state school" if given the choice.
The full ComRes poll for the BBC can be found here.
