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
Latest 'persecuted Christian' case dismissed by employment tribunal
Posted: Wed, 2 May 2012 06:35
The latest Christian to claim victimisation in the workplace has had his claim for religious discrimination dismissed by an employment tribunal in Birmingham.
Dr David Drew was dismissed for "gross misconduct and insubordination" in December 2010 after refusing to accept the conclusions of a report into his relationship with Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust.
The doctor was first suspended in 2009 for six weeks following a complaint by a senior nurse that he was undermining her, but which was subsequently dismissed.
A grievance by Dr Drew about his suspension was dealt with by an independent review panel. He was told to accept the recommendations of the panel's report in full. One of the recommendations included refraining from making reference to religion in professional communications.
The Daily Mail and the Telegraph picked up the story in March 2012 when Dr Drew told an employment tribunal that he was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of his religious beliefs. The Daily Mail ran with the headline "Christian doctor 'sacked for emailing a PRAYER to hospital colleagues to raise their spirits'".
However, when Sue James, current chief executive of Derby's hospitals was called to give evidence, she revealed that Dr Drew produced a "toxic environment" at the hospital by constantly raising complaints against his co-workers. Mrs James said: "For two and a half years we had a relationship that wasn't working."
Dr Drew emailed a prayer to colleagues to try to "motivate his department". But Mrs James told the employment tribunal that Dr Drew's religious references were "highly marginal" in the investigation. She told the hearing: "It was about the verbosity and length of his emails. He deconstructed every sentence and sent it to so many people."
Mrs James said she was soon being sent numerous emails from Dr Drew complaining about the report's findings. She said: "I was the chief executive running the hospital and David was taking up one day of my personal time a week. We needed to move forward."
In reaching its unanimous decision, the employment tribunal this week said it had found no evidence that Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust or the members of an independent panel that investigated Dr Drew were influenced, even subconsciously, by a prejudice against Christians. The tribunal said there was no need for Dr Drew to refer to himself as a Christian or to make religious references in professional communication if they are considered inappropriate and if they hinder proper communication.
In dismissing the claim the judgement concluded:
"The panel dismissing the claimant were entitled to conclude that the implementation of that report without reservation was key to the future of the Paediatric Department and that the claimant's continued failure to accept and adopt the recommendations had potentially harmful consequences for the Department. Furthermore, the claimant had admitted clear breaches of confidentiality in choosing to widen the distribution of certain conclusions in the report contrary to his express agreement not to do so."
Despite claiming for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination, Dr Drew also says he was dismissed for whistle-blowing over child protection. In a witness statement to the tribunal, Dr Drew said problems began in 2008 when he complained about hospital practices. He cited two occasions when children had allegedly been sexually assaulted on the ward and another where a child had died after a consultant let him go home.
However, despite Dr Drew referring to himself as a whistleblower (his twitter account is @NHSwhistleblowr) his claim for unfair dismissal was not brought under the Public Interest Disclosure Act which protects whistleblowers from detrimental treatment by their employer.
In dismissing Dr Drew's appeal to amend his claim in December 2011, the employment judge concluded:
"I find it difficult to understand why, if public interest disclosure played such a significant role in the claimant's mind in the alleged detriments and his subsequent dismissal, that through a process of years and multiple opportunities no attempt was made at an earlier stage to apply to amend the claim"
Stephen Evans, Campaigns Manager at the National Secular Society, said: "Yet again we find that when claims of discrimination against Christians in the workplace are properly scrutinised, they fall flat on their face.
"The Christian propaganda machine, so enthusiastically assisted by certain sections of the British media, is attempting to gain special privileges in all areas of life for those who declare themselves to be Christian. It is time their false narrative of Christian persecution in Britain was exposed as the pernicious pack of lies that it is."
Kuwait must not impose death penalty for blasphemy, says Amnesty
Posted: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:38
A proposed legal amendment that would make blasphemy a crime punishable by death in Kuwait would be a massive step backwards by the country's authorities, if passed by parliament, Amnesty International have said.
The draft law was quickly introduced and passed by the Kuwaiti Parliament's Law and Legal Affairs Committee following the arrest of a man accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Twitter.
Hamad al-Naqi, a member of Kuwait's Shi'a Muslim minority, is being held in pre-trial detention charged with "defaming the Prophet" in tweets posted last month. He has denied making the posts, saying that somebody hacked into his Twitter account.
Kuwait's parliament voted in favour of the amendment on 12 April. Before it is passed, the amendment must go to a second vote two weeks after the first and then be approved by the government andKuwait's ruler Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah.
"We urge Kuwait's parliament to reject such an amendment which would constitute a flagrant breach of the country's international human rights obligations," said Ann Harrison, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Middle Eastand North Africa Programme.
"All eyes are on Kuwait's recently-elected legislators. They must immediately scrap any plans to introduce the death penalty for blasphemy."
Article 111 of the Penal Code prohibits defamation of religion, currently providing for up to one year's imprisonment and a fine.
Under international law, "religious" offences do not fall under the category of "most serious crimes", the minimum threshold prescribed for crimes carrying the death penalty.
In November 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called on Kuwait to "revise its legislation on blasphemy and related laws […] to ensure their strict compliance with the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR]" to which Kuwaitis a state party.
Article 15 of the ICCPR prohibits states from imposing a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time an alleged offence was committed.
"If it emerges that Hamad al-Naqi's Twitter account was indeed hacked then he has no case to answer; otherwise he is being held solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression and, unless charged with an internationally recognizable offence, he must be released immediately," said Ann Harrison.
"On no account should he be sentenced to death."
