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
Pickles wrong to assign a ‘Christian ethos’ to Britain
Posted: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:40
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has surpassed himself in an opinion piece for the Telegraph headed A Christian ethos strengthens our nation: Religion shaped the modern British state, and this Government is proud to 'do God'.
He asserts that "we are a Christian nation – and should not be afraid to say so". Can this ardent Christian have failed to notice that Christian affiliation and church attendance have been in continuing decline for nearly a century? The BBC has let slip that the latest social attitudes survey shows half the nation now says it has no religion, and among young people the figure is even higher. And there is no sign of that decline halting. In such a tub thumping piece, not to even acknowledge this scenario is disingenuous, to say the least.
He also tells us that moral leadership is offered by Christian leaders. It may be offered, but it certainly isn't taken; polls show that the clergy are practically the last people that those seeking moral leadership turn to.
And what a wonderful example we have had of moral leadership over same-sex marriage. The church vilifying homosexuals and the Anglicans seeking to justify their bigotry with a dishonest and self-serving submission to the Government Equality Office. And these Christian leaders are not only seeking to deny secular same-sex marriage – with no religious input at all - but they are opposing the possibility of optional same-sex religious marriage to liberal religious organisations who are anxious to have it. Polls show that those in the pews would also like the church to lighten up on this.
And then we learn that faith communities provide a "clear moral compass". We do not suggest that many people of faith are not moral, but they certainly don't have a monopoly of morality, and the clear implication is that those outside the faith communities are not moral, or certainly not to the same extent. That is a wholly inappropriate statement for the Secretary of State for Communities to make. And many will be concerned that "clear" is a euphemism for bigoted and doctrinaire.
And that brings us to the Coalition having an explicit "integration" strategy to bring communities together. To be fair, the Blair and Brown governments also emphasised religion, and addressed citizens primarily as a religious entities – for example in segregated schools or in community work. The idea that dwelling on the very issue that divides us most– religion – somehow brings communities together is the biggest lie peddled by these governments, and motivated by an obsession with promoting religion at any cost.
Having bashed the religious drum, Mr Pickles then turns his sights on secularism, which he cannot refer to without first adding a pejorative adjective, and indeed cannot mention without misrepresenting.
One of his two major beefs with the National Secular Society is our intervention at the European Court of Human Rights supporting the decisions of the UK courts in rejecting the claims of two workers wearing crucifixes. To his credit, he does acknowledge that our action is in support of his own Government and its position. According to Mr Pickles the government's position "should not be misinterpreted as supporting secularism: rather, we are resisting Brussels interference and gold-plating of what should be a matter for common sense." Could it just be that secularism and common sense have led us both to the same conclusion?
Clearly implying that these were the issues in the crucifix cases, Mr Pickles informs his readers that "Banning discreet religious symbols for reasons of political correctness is not acceptable. We should challenge the nonsense that religious displays could "cause offence" and therefore should be hidden from view?" He certainly doesn't let the facts stand in the way. The cases were not about banning any crosses or crucifixes; there is no ban on crosses or crucifixes, political correctness did not come into it and no one suggested that causing offence played any part in the courts' decisions. The cases were about health and safety and jewellery, and the very considerable attempts by the employers to accommodate the employees were repeatedly rebuffed. They became even more obdurate as soon as their religious litigant helpmates at the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Institute came onto the scene.
Mr Pickles' other major bone of contention with the NSS (in his words the "intolerant" NSS) is the court case we won on Council prayers. He characterises this among the "long-standing British liberties of freedom of religion have been undermined in recent years by aggressive secularism".
All the National Secular Society did was ask the High Court to make a decision. But he is careful not to remind readers that the NSS made clear both before taking action and in the High Court that it was perfectly happy with (optional) prayers being said before Council meetings or a period of silent contemplation during them. That does not restrict anyone's freedom of religion, the manifestation of which under human rights charters is a relative not absolute freedom – so it needs to be balanced with the rights of others, for example the non-religious going about their democratic business.
He claims to have changed the law to "safeguard and entrench the right of councillors to pray at the start of council meetings should they wish". Not necessarily so. It is the function of the courts, not Ministers, to interpret the law. Ministers have no power to reverse court rulings, and this Act of Parliament he refers to, the Localism Act, makes no specific mention of council prayers and received Royal assent before the judicial review was heard by the High Court.
In saying equality laws must not reduce established religion to the equivalent status of any other belief, Eric Pickles is clearly advocating a state where Christianity is privileged above all other beliefs, including non belief. Such opposition to a modern secular democracy undermines British liberties in exactly the way he accuses 'militant secularism' of doing.
It beggars belief that the Minister asserts that "Christians also have the right to be heard by policy-makers", as if Christians were routinely ignored and downtrodden. Mr Pickles speaks as a minister of the only country in the world to give bishops the right to sit in its Parliament, and of the only country in the world where daily prayers (overwhelmingly Christian) are mandatory in every school in the land.
NSS intervene in landmark cases at European Court of Human Rights
Posted: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:41
Four controversial British religious discrimination cases are due to be heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday 4 September 2012. The outcome will have a huge impact on how future equality cases involving religion are determined.
The National Secular Society is the only intervener to argue – along with the Government – that the judgments about wearing crosses at work and refusing on religious grounds to provide services to gay people were correctly dismissed by the UK courts, and the dismissal did not, as the applicants claim, breach their freedom of religion.
The submission was prepared for the NSS by renowned Human Rights barrister Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, assisted by Dr Ronan McCrea of University College London and Max Schaefer of Brick Court.
The cases are brought by Eweida and Chaplin, concerning the wearing of crosses at work and Ladele and McFarlane, both of whom objected on religious grounds to dealing with same sex couples in the same way they would with opposite sex couples. Ladele was a Registrar and McFarlane a Relate counsellor. All four are applying to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the dismissal of their cases breached their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the UK law must therefore be changed.
We understand that the NSS was the only organisation given leave to intervene that fully supports the UK Government's view that the UK is not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of these cases.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society said: "Any further accommodation of religious conscience in UK equality law would create a damaging hierarchy of rights, with religion trumping all. Any change to the law to increase religious accommodation stands the risk of seriously undermining UK equality law.
"This is likely to be a landmark case determining the future direction of equality law in the UK, and potentially also in Europe.
"In the cases of Ladele and McFarlane, the rights of gay people are placed at risk if it is decided that 'reasonable accommodation' is acceptable when religious people provide (or refuse to provide) services to them. We have argued that such accommodations are humiliating and unacceptable. Such accommodation would not be suggested if the objection were on the basis of race, and it should not be granted on grounds of sexual orientation.
"In the case of the wearing of religious symbols at work — Eweida and Chaplin — we think the English courts reached the correct decisions on the relevant facts.
"We argue strongly that religious conscience should not override uniform policies or health and safety regulations in the workplace. We uphold everyone's right to manifest their religion and wear religious insignia, but occasionally there may be limited circumstances where the State and private employers will be justified in restricting the display of religious symbols, or indeed, expressions of non-belief, in the interests of protecting the rights of fellow employees, users of public services, and private customers.
"We very much regret the disingenuous and persistent portrayal of the current situation as being a blanket ban on religious symbols in the workplace. As the millions of people who wear a cross to work will testify, there is no such ban, nor should there be such a ban. But it is important that employers maintain their rights to ask their staff to comply with reasonable uniform policies or health and safety regulations. We must at all costs avoid creating a hierarchy of rights with religious rights firmly at the top."
Read the National Secular Society submission in full
The application numbers of the cases to be heard in the European Court of Human Rights are:
Nadia Eweida & Shirley Chaplin against the United Kingdom (Application numbers 48420/10 and 59842/10) – Statement of facts
Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane against the United Kingdom (Application numbers 51671/10 and 36516/10) – Statement of facts
