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
Chancellor urges caution around use of word ‘Islamophobia’
Posted: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:27
The chancellor of the exchequer Sajid Javid has said he does not use the word 'Islamophobia' because of its capacity to shut down legitimate criticism of religion.
The National Secular Society has said the government should heed Javid's comments, which came in a BBC Radio 4 interview on Monday, as it considers its strategy on anti-Muslim hatred.
He said the government would hold an inquiry into defining 'Islamophobia' – but noted that he preferred the term "anti-Muslim hate crime".
"Sometimes when some people talk about 'Islamophobia', sometimes some people mean that you shouldn't criticise or shouldn't have the ability to criticise a religion – not people, but a religion.
"And I think in our free society anyone should be able to talk about any religion... respectfully, but to say I don't agree with that religion. That's up to them.
"But attacking someone if they are a Muslim is completely, utterly unacceptable. So, it's 'anti-Muslim hate crime'."
Backlash against Tory conference event
His comments came amid a furious backlash against an event at the Conservative party conference where 'Islamophobia' was debated on Sunday.
In an opinion piece in The Guardian, Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi claimed the meeting 'Challenging "Islamophobia"' had become "a Muslim-bashing fest" and described it as "disingenuous, divisive and peppered with dog whistles".
She also noted: "Being named 'Islamophobe of the year' was joked about by panellists as if it were a badge to be worn with pride."
This echoed sentiments she had expressed in a viral tweet shortly after the event.
The president of the National Union of Students, Zamzam Ibrahim, pulled out of the conference after the event, claiming she was "horrified" by the panel's "dangerous rhetoric" . Her decision generated substantial press coverage.
Event misrepresented
But accounts of the event suggested its critics had significantly misrepresented it.
The panellists Trevor Phillips and Peter Tatchell – an NSS honorary associate – had joked about the 'Islamophobe of the Year' award handed out by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC).
The IHRC has links to the Iranian government and awarded 'Islamophobe of the Year' to Charlie Hebdo magazine shortly after 12 people were murdered at its offices in 2015.
In a letter to The Guardian, Tatchell said every panellist had condemned anti-Muslim prejudice and added that he had made "concrete proposals to protect Muslims against discrimination and hate crime".
He added: "Two of us questioned parliament's sweeping definition of Islamophobia as a potential threat to free speech. That's all."
Warsi is a high-profile advocate of a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia' from all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims. The NSS opposes the definition.
NSS reaction
NSS spokesperson Chris Sloggett said this week's developments highlighted "the potential pitfalls that the government faces amid increasing pressure to define 'Islamophobia'".
"Sajid Javid is right to distinguish between criticism of religion and hatred of people based on their religion. The government must note that distinction carefully as it considers its strategy for tackling anti-Muslim hatred.
"The 'Challenging Islamophobia' event appears to have seen a largely reasonable critique of the threat posed to free expression by a definition of 'Islamophobia'. The fact it was widely dismissed as 'Muslim-bashing' is a stark illustration of the very threat to free speech the panellists were warning about."
Notes
- The government rejected calls to adopt the APPG definition of 'Islamophobia' in May. It has said it will come up with its own definition.
- The NSS has lobbied the government and local authorities and urged them not to adopt the APPG definition. In December the society wrote to Sajid Javid, who was the home secretary at the time, over the issue in a letter co-signed by six other activists.
Image: Sajid Javid, © Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [CC BY-ND 2.0]
NSS urges advertising regulators not to defer to religion
Posted: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 13:13
The National Secular Society has urged the bodies which write advertising regulation guidelines to protect freedom of expression on religion in response to consultations over rules on offence.
The NSS has warned the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) that draft guidelines go "further than is necessary" to comply with equalities legislation.
CAP and BCAP have launched consultations over proposed changes which are designed to ensure their guidelines are compatible with the Equality Act of 2010. The act protects people from discrimination on the basis of particular characteristics, including their religion or belief.
The BCAP code is set to:
- Include a new line requiring advertisers to take "particular care" to "avoid causing offence" on religious and other grounds
- Continue to say adverts "must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards".
The CAP code is set to:
- Retain a requirement that advertisers take "particular care" to avoid causing offence on religious and other grounds
- Retain a rule that marketing "must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence"
- Continue to urge marketers to "consider public sensitivities" before using "potentially offensive material".
The CAP code will also continue to include a caveat saying marketing communications may be "distasteful" without "necessarily" breaching rules on causing offence. Another will say the fact a product is "offensive to some people" is not grounds for finding a breach of the code.
The NSS's submissions to the consultations said protections afforded to religion and belief "go further than is necessary" to ensure regulators comply with the Equality Act.
"The wording is unduly concerned with not causing offence, which is a subjective emotional response. The guidance also presumes that the public will be harmed if they see an offensive advertisement. Given the low threshold for offence that the ASA applies, that seems questionable.
"As a body charged with regulating the boundaries of acceptable expression, the ASA has a responsibility not to shut down adverts without good reason or encourage advertisers to self-censor unnecessarily. CAP guidance should in no way encourage it to do so."
The NSS recommended that the rules should focus on "prohibiting content likely to promote discrimination and harassment" rather than "relying on the vague concept of offence".
Both codes will now refer to "religion or belief" where they previously referred only to "religion", in a change welcomed by the NSS.
Explaining the NSS's position, chief executive Stephen Evans said religion "must not be given special deference" in CAP rules.
"Guidance that places a premium on religious feelings and is too censorious in deeming certain advertising to be 'offensive' on the grounds of religion or belief risks reinforcing harmful religious taboos that violate the human right to freedom of expression."
CAP and BCAP are sister organisations of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which enforces their guidelines.
In its submission the NSS noted that the ASA had previously banned some "very tame" adverts because they featured religious themes.
Earlier this year the ASA issued guidance on 'avoiding causing religious offence during Easter', which told advertisers "to exercise caution" when referring to religion, "particularly when it comes to respecting people's faith and beliefs".
Shortly afterwards the NSS wrote to the ASA to raise concerns over its aversion to free expression on religion. In response ASA chief executive Guy Parker agreed that the authority has a responsibility not to shut down adverts without good reason or encourage advertisers to self-censor unnecessarily.
