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
Feel free to annoy me: new campaign launched to protect free expression
Posted: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:04
The National Secular Society has joined together with religious groups and civil liberties campaigners to launch a new campaign to challenge Government proposals to outlaw "annoying" behaviour.
Less than a year after the Lords voted to protect free speech by removing the word "insulting" from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the Government is introducing a sweeping new anti-social behaviour law that threatens to undermine a wide range of free expression within the public sphere, and could silence protestors, buskers, street preachers and even carol singers.
As with the campaign to remove the word 'insulting' from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, the National Secular Society is working with the Christian Institute and other civil liberty groups under the 'Reform Clause 1: Feel Free To Annoy Me' banner. The campaign will officially launch at the House of Commons on Wednesday 27 November.
The proposed new law is contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 1 of the bill introduces "Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance" (IPNAs), which seek to suppress anything deemed to be potentially "annoying", however vague the justification. IPNAs will replace Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), which had been introduced under the Labour government.
Whilst in order for an ASBO to be issued, a court has to be satisfied that someone had at least caused or threatened to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to someone else and that the order was "necessary" to protect the victim, the proposed new law would allow a court to impose sweeping curbs on people's liberty if it thinks they are "capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person", and so long as it is "just and convenient" to do so.
The nuisance or annoyance test used for an IPNA is currently used for Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions (ASBIs), which were introduced in 2003 specifically for a social housing context. Since ASBIs are housing specific, their scope is automatically limited. Within the broader public order context, this would not be the not the case, and concerns have been expressed that the nuisance or annoyance test encompasses a too-wide range of behaviour, and is too imprecise to allow people to understand what is expected of them. Furthermore, the proposed law includes no defence of 'reasonableness', requires only a civil burden of proof, and would give the police powerful new dispersal powers.
In a formal legal opinion circulated to peers, former Director of Public Prosecutions and Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Macdonald QC, has described the Government's plans for these new civil injunctions as amounting to "gross state interference" with people's private lives and basic freedoms.
He argues that, "the danger in this Bill is that it potentially empowers State interference against annoying activities in the face of shockingly low safeguards." He notes that, in practice, IPNAs could be used against virtually anyone leading to "serious and unforeseeable interferences in individual rights, to the greater public detriment."
Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "Clause 1 clearly fails to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the public from anti-social behaviour and protecting essential freedoms. Legislation that criminalises "annoying" behaviour represents a serious threat to public protest and free speech and must not be allowed to pass into law."
Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute, commented: "This law will give massive power to the authorities to seek court orders to silence people guilty of nothing more than breaching political correctness or social etiquette."
Campaign groups such Liberty and Justice have also expressed concern about clause 1 of the bill, as has the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights.
You can follow the campaign on Twitter @ReformClause1 or visit http://reformclause1.org.uk/
See also: Peter Tatchell: Putting up with a degree of annoyance is the price we pay for liberty
Kuwait: 5 years for tweet “insulting” Prophet
Posted: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:20
(Sanaa) – A Kuwaiti court on November 18, 2013, sentenced a Kuwaiti man to five years in prison for a Twitter comment about Sunni/Shia theology. The sentence in the Kuwaiti Court of First Instance against Musab Shamsah was the second in less than a month for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
The Kuwaiti authorities should drop all charges against Shamsah for his peaceful religious comment, Human Rights Watch said. Kuwaiti prosecutors should stop bringing charges against people for their peaceful expression of religious, political, or other views.
"It's an insult to all Kuwaitis for the government to give itself the authority to decide what's insulting to religion, and to jail Kuwaitis for it," said Saeah Leah Whitson,Middle Eastdirector at Human Rights Watch. "Let each Kuwaiti decide what he or she finds insulting, and as simple as clicking 'unfollow,' decide whether they want to see or hear a message."
Local police arrested Shamsah in May for a tweet posted earlier that month, reflecting his opinion on the theological role of Muslim imams. The sentence was based on article 111 of the penal code, which prohibits mocking religion, with a maximum one-year sentence. In addition to that sentence, the court also convicted him of violating the 2012 National Unity Law, which criminalizes publishing and broadcasting content that could be deemed offensive to religious "sects" or groups, and for misusing his mobile phone to disseminate the objectionable comments, adding another four years.
Shamsah's lawyer, Khalil Ghulam, told Human Rights Watch that Shamsah pleaded not guilty to all the charges, contending that prosecutors had misinterpreted his tweet, which made a reference to the Prophet's grandsons. He said he had deleted it 10 minutes after publishing it, and clarified what he had meant in two subsequent tweets. His lawyer told Human Rights Watch that he would file an appeal on November 20.
Activists have explained that his tweets pertain to Shia and Sunni theological differences.
Since a political crisis in June 2012, Kuwaiti authorities have ramped up their efforts to limit free expression, charging dozens of politicians, online activists, and journalists with "offending"Kuwait's head of state, other regional leaders, and the Prophet, among other charges. Prosecutors have relied on vaguely worded provisions in the penal code, such as article 25, which sets out sentences of up to five years in prison for anyone who publicly "objects to the rights and authorities of the emir or faults him," or article 111, which sets out sentences of up to one year in prison for anyone who "mocks God, the prophets and messengers, or the honor of his messengers and their wives."
The authorities should drop charges against those accused or convicted of crimes solely for exercising their right to express critical views on any subject, no matter how sensitive, and should revoke articles 25 and 111 of the penal code, as well as the 2012 National Unity Law, Human Rights Watch said.
As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights,Kuwaitis required to protect the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which provides the definitive interpretation of the covenant, has stated that, "Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the covenant," except where it "constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence."
"Kuwaiti prosecutors appear to have designated themselves as expert theologians able to ascertain whether opinions on thousand-year-old religious matters might be offensive," Whitson said. "Don't Kuwaiti police, judges, and lawyers have anything more important to do than prosecute Kuwaitis engaged in religious debates?"
Human Rights Watch. Kuwait: 5 years for tweet 'insulting' Prophet. © 2013 by Human Rights Watch
