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
NSS asks art gallery to review decision to uphold blasphemy code
Posted: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:15
The National Secular Society has asked a major west London art gallery which covered two paintings in cloth in response to complaints from Muslim visitors to review its decision.
The Saatchi Gallery decided to cover up the paintings after visitors claimed they were blasphemous and the artist, who uses the pseudonym SKU, suggested doing so.
The gallery told The Sunday Times it "fully supported" freedom of expression but added that it "also recognises the sincerity of the complaints made against these works and supported the artist's decision to cover them until the end of the exhibition".
The paintings showed the text of an Islamic declaration of faith interwoven with images of nude women in the style of the US flag.
In an open letter to Nigel Hurst, the Saatchi Gallery's CEO, NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said the gallery had "contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists".
"The fact some people take blasphemy codes seriously is not a reason for anyone else to do so. A specifically religious sense of taboo is not something that art galleries should be imposing on society at large.
"The upholding of de facto blasphemy codes under the guise of civility and politeness risks perpetuating religious taboos that violate the human right to freedom of expression and can serve to legitimise vigilantism, mob violence and persecution of those that are deemed to have broken them."
Mr Evans added that the gallery's "significant public profile" endowed it with "a social responsibility to resist demands for censorship". According to the gallery's website, 1.5m people visit it each year.
Mr Evans asked the gallery to "consider whether your approach has shown undue deference to religious sensitivities, placing unreasonable restrictions on artists' freedom of expression and the public's expectation to view artwork without the interference of censorship".
And he asked for "a commitment to review the decisions that were made in this instance in an attempt to limit the damage caused and protect free expression in future".
"The silencing of a powerful institution with a stated liberal mission will set a damaging precedent, giving succour to religious reactionaries who seek to clamp down on dissenters and free thinkers. This remains true regardless of whether the decision to cover the paintings had the consent of the artist involved."
The exhibition that the paintings appeared in, Rainbow Scenes, closed last Friday after a two-and-a-half week run.
On its website the Saatchi Gallery says it aims to provide an "innovative forum for contemporary art".
Explaining his decision to write the letter, Mr Evans said: "The Saatchi Gallery is the latest private institution to take the easy way out when facing complaints of religious offence.
"It's caved in to an unreasonable demand to infringe the right of those attending the gallery to view a piece of art. It has presented the decision as a compromise, but in reality it simply emboldens censorious religious offence-takers and encourages them to demand the silencing of more people."
The NSS campaigns for freedom of expression on religious issues and against blasphemy laws and codes.
The blasphemy law in England and Wales was repealed in 2008, after 142 years of NSS campaigning. The NSS continues to guard against de facto blasphemy codes imposed by the combination of violence, demands for 'civility' and self-censorship.
Last year the society criticised two breweries, Greene King and Mitchells & Butlers, for taking down the Saudi Arabian flag from displays to mark the football World Cup in an attempt to avoid offending Muslims.
The NSS has also spoken out on decisions such as British Gymnastics' decision to ban gymnast Louis Smith for two months for mocking aspects of Islamic belief.
Two NSS honorary associates, Nick Cohen and Pragna Patel, will address the subject of freedom of expression at the society's upcoming Secularism 2019 conference on 18 May.
Explaining his support for the Saatchi Gallery's decision to cover his works, SKU said: "It seemed a respectful solution that enables a debate about freedom of expression versus the perceived right not to be offended."
Image: The Saatchi Gallery at the former duke of York's headquarters in Chelsea, London; © Jack Gavigan [CC BY-SA 3.0]
Adopting Islamophobia definition ‘would cripple counter-terrorism'
Posted: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:27
The adoption of a proposed definition of 'Islamophobia' would have a "seriously detrimental impact" on efforts to keep the UK safe, a former counter-terrorism chief has warned.
Richard Walton said adopting the definition could lead to government departments, the police, intelligence agencies and other public bodies being branded "institutionally Islamophobic".
Walton, the former head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism branch, made the claims in a report published by the Policy Exchange think tank on Monday entitled Islamophobia – Crippling Counter-Terrorism. He co-wrote the report with Policy Exchange's senior research fellow Tom Wilson.
The definition the authors criticised was proposed by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims in a report published in November. The APPG claims that "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".
Since then several prominent MPs and campaign groups have urged the government to adopt the definition. The Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the mayor of London and several local authorities have adopted the definition. Last week all five of Scotland's major political parties joined them.
The National Secular Society, which campaigns to uphold the principle of free speech on religious matters, is encouraging the government not to adopt the APPG's definition. In December the NSS co-ordinated a letter, signed by six other activists, which urged the home secretary to resist calls to adopt the definition.
The Policy Exchange report said the APPG had fallen into "the trap of attempting to define a political construct".
"In doing so [it] confused issues of religion and theology with raw political questions and [has] left a demonstrably open field for damaging and even absurd conclusions."
It said government acceptance of the definition would "seriously undermine the effectiveness of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy" and harm public confidence in the agencies charged with combating terrorism.
It said the "highest threats to the UK's national security" have been "largely but not exclusively Islamist threats over the past 25 years". At the end of September 2018 80% of those in custody for terror-related offences in Great Britain were categorised as holding Islamist extremist views.
It said the APPG's report claims a "clear linkage between Islamophobia and counter-terrorism initiatives in a way that can only serve to undermine the legitimacy of government policy and practice in this area".
It said the report's argument that the 'targeting of Muslimness' should be adjudged as 'racial discrimination' would create an opportunity "to brand the component parts of the UK counter-terrorism criminal justice system as 'institutionally Islamophobic'". It added that it is "inevitable" that Islamist groups would exploit this opportunity.
It said the definition would deter police from stopping and searching extremists at ports or after terrorist attacks and undermine counter-terrorist officers' efforts to disrupt and prosecute terrorist groups.
It said it would make it harder for public sector organisations to fulfil their duties under the Prevent strategy.
It said the proposed definition "risks diminishing freedom of speech and impairing our ability, as a society, to debate the causes of Islamist extremism". It added that the definition could "effectively introduce a blasphemy law which could result in police interventions and arrests by officers for alleged Islamophobic ('racist') words and behaviour".
It said the adverse impact on counter-terrorism efforts would include a negative impact on efforts to keep "Muslim communities safe from far-right terrorism" and to tackle "intra-Muslim sectarian attacks".
As an alternative to the adoption of the definition it suggested the Commission for Countering Extremism could draft a code of practice on extremism which included both anti-Muslim and intra-Muslim hatred.
In remarks reported by The Times, Walton said: "There is no doubt in my mind that [the APPG's] definition of Islamophobia would severely damage the work of counterterrorism police as well as the security service, MI5.
"This would make terrorist attacks more likely to succeed and the country less safe as a whole."
A former reviewer of terrorism legislation, Alex Carlile, backed the report's conclusions. In the report's foreword he wrote that "successful and accepted counterterrorism measures would run the risk of being declared unlawful".
NSS spokesperson Chris Sloggett said the report had "highlighted some particularly alarming consequences which would come from adopting the APPG's ill-thought-out definition".
"The government often rightly says its first duty is to keep people safe. This report, co-authored by a former head of counter-terrorism with the Metropolitan Police, shows that adopting the proposed definition of Islamophobia would undermine its efforts to do that.
"The report also highlights the concern that the definition poses a threat to free expression on religion. Our society needs a rigorous public debate on how best to tackle intolerance and violence, including that inspired by interpretations of Islam.
"The government should read this report and consider its conclusions carefully."
Image: Richard Walton, via Twitter.
