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
Jury dismissed in Leicester trial of man accused of ripping up his Koran – no retrial planned
Posted: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:30
The trial has collapsed of a Leicester man who was accused of causing "religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group". Peter James Crawford was said to have torn pages from his own copy of the Koran and thrown the book on the ground shouting "Your religion is a load of b***cks". He did this next to a stall run by the Islamic Information Centre, near the Clock Tower, in Leicester city centre, last May.
Kamran Qayyum, an employee of the IIC, told the court that Mr Crawford "started tearing up pages from a book and they were going on the floor. He wasn't saying anything. The pages covered a lot of ground, they were everywhere. I then noticed Arabic inscriptions and realised it was the Koran. I knelt down and was picking up the papers when he threw the Koran down, just missing me."
Mr Qayyum said: "The Koran is sacred to us and we honour it. We also have a Bible on our stand and we show the Bible the same respect. One of the laws of the Koran is it shouldn't be on the floor, it should be high up and our hands should be clean when it's touched. I was shocked."
Defence advocate Steven Newcombe said: "There are many who oppose Islam. Did you take it he was expressing anti-Islamic views and disrespecting the religion?"
"Yes," said Mr Quyyum, although he agreed that Mr Crawford did not threaten or provoke any violence.
Another stall volunteer, Zahid Hussein, said: "I saw him ripping up the book. I was in shock, disgusted. It's our life, our way of life and we live by that book – it's very sacred."
Mr Crawford claimed, in interview, that he was expressing his disagreement with religion of any kind. He told the police it was his own copy of the Koran he tore up, and he would have done the same with a Bible as he did not understand either holy book and "hated" all religion. "I'm not against the people, just their religion," he said.
James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said: "The real issue is whether Crawford was insulting and whether it was a crime that we say he committed. It's tradition in this country of freedom of speech and people are entitled to say what they want, as long as it's not illegal in relation to the law, which prevents people going out to cause harassment, alarm or distress by insulting behaviour, basically upsetting people.
"It's for you to decide whether what he did was insulting or whether it was a legitimate piece of freedom of speech being exercised or if what he did was deliberately calculated to upset the people from the Islamic Information Centre."
But the eight women and four men on the jury sent a note to the judge saying there was no prospect of them reaching either a unanimous or a majority verdict on which at least 10 of them agreed.
Crawford was released on bail with a condition imposed that he should not to go within half-a-mile of the Clock Tower on Saturday afternoons.
The Crown Prosecution Service has, in such cases, 14 days to decide whether or not to proceed with a retrial. The NSS Wrote to the CPS expressing some concern about the free speech implications of this case.
Ann Meatyard, the District Crown Prosecutor, replied:
The CPS takes allegations of religiously aggravated offending extremely seriously, because of the impact these offences can have on our community. We therefore prosecute such cases robustly, according to the facts in the case. In this instance it was determined that there was a realistic prospect of a conviction, so we felt that it was important for a jury to be able to consider all the facts in the case.
There are a number of factors that I took into consideration in deciding whether a second trial should be sought. After looking at all the factors in this case I decided that the most appropriate course of action was not to seek a retrial on the same evidence, following the jury being unable to reach a verdict in the first trial.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, commented: "The Muslim volunteers put themselves out there in a public place with an idea that should not have special protection from argument or strong disapproval. We would protect the right of the Islamic Society to distribute their propaganda, but, providing it is done non-violently, we should also protect the right of those who dispute it to freely express their disproval."
Take action: urge your MP to support free speech
Posted: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:27
The House of Lords recently passed an amendment to remove "insulting words" from the scope of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Read the full story.
Despite the Government and Opposition whipping against the amendment, Peers voted for it by 150 to 54, including a majority of Peers from every party. The argument for reform is strong and the support very broad.
The Bill containing the amendment, the Crime and Courts Bill, is due in the Commons in January.
The near 100 majority chalked up in the Lords despite opposition from the Conservative and Labour frontbenches demonstrates a realistic prospect of success in the Commons, provided we keep up the momentum. That's where you come in.
We need your support to ensure that MPs retain this vital free speech measure. Please write to your MP, explaining why you think that the police should not be in the business of protecting us from feeling insulted. Please ask them to urge the Home Office to accept Clause 38 of Crime and Courts Bill.
To contact your MP you can also use our easy online form on the Reform Section 5 website.
Find out more about the campaign to Reform Section 5.
