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
Report highlights religious threat to global human rights
Posted: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:14
Blasphemy laws, supremacist ideologies, sectarianism, 'caste' systems and exclusionary laws are among the ways religion restricts human rights globally, according to a parliamentary group.
A report from the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) highlighted violations of religious freedom in 27 countries to mark Human Rights Day on 10 December.
In the report's foreword Dr Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur for freedom of religion or belief, called the subject "a critical issue of our time".
Dr Shaheed is among the scheduled speakers at the National Secular Society's Secularism 2019 conference in London on 18 May. The conference will focus on the topic of reclaiming religious freedom.
The report highlighted the threat posed by blasphemy laws in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. In several of these countries it said the threat of blasphemy laws was growing and they were being used to harass religious minorities.
It also raised the restrictions which 'caste' systems placed on the rights of Dalits, who are considered to be of a lower 'caste' by some Hindus, in Bangladesh and India. In India the report said "Christian and Muslim Dalits are doubly vulnerable as they suffer persecution for their religion as well as their class". The UK government has been resisting efforts by the NSS and other human rights campaigners to make discrimination based on the idea of 'caste' explicitly outlawed in UK equality legislation.
The report highlighted discriminatory laws, such as those used to persecute Sunni Muslims and Bahais in Iran. It said Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia face "intense discrimination". It also raised the impact of discrimination in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and Yemen.
It also highlighted the "extreme persecution" of the religious, particularly Christians, in North Korea, and the authoritarian crackdown on religious groups in China.
The APPG report said various actors in Syria's civil war had "significantly increased sectarian tensions" in the country. It also said sectarian divisions had undermined human rights in Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
It said laws to prevent religious conversion and inter-religious marriage also posed a threat to religious freedom in several countries.
The report recommended a series of steps that the Foreign Office should take to bolster the UK's response to the abuses it had identified, including by ensuring better training provision.
Dr Shaheed said the report showed "the inherent interconnectedness of every person's right to FoRB with other fundamental human rights".
NSS spokesperson Chris Sloggett said the report acted as "a reminder of the need to promote the separation of religion from state".
"A common theme in this report is that when politicians take a particular view of religion and enact it in law, they undermine fundamental rights. And when they recognise people according to the religious groups they do or don't belong to, they undermine the right to be treated equally under the law.
"The Foreign Office should do all it can to promote genuine religious freedom– a qualified right which belongs to everyone equally – as consistently as possible.
"Many of the violations outlined in this report are far worse than anything seen regularly in the UK. But it's worth noting that the government could enhance its diplomats' negotiating position by promoting secularism at home."
Twenty-one of the countries in the report are on a Foreign Office human rights priority list. The list is drawn up according to the gravity of the human rights situation, the country's trajectory and the UK's ability to influence matters.
Home secretary urged not to adopt definition of ‘Islamophobia'
Posted: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 15:10
The National Secular Society has urged the home secretary to resist calls to adopt a formal definition of 'Islamophobia' which have been put forward by a parliamentary group.
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans co-ordinated a letter to Sajid Javid on the subject after a high-profile report from the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims.
The APPG's report recommended that the government define 'Islamophobia' as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness".
The NSS's letter has been co-signed by six other activists. A shortened version was published in the Sunday Times.
The letter called the APPG's definition "vague and unworkable" and said it "conflates hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims with criticism of Islam".
"While we believe that in a liberal secular society individuals should be afforded respect and protection, we are clear that ideas should not."
It said the phrase "expressions of Muslimness" could "effectively be translated to mean Islamic practices". At the report's launch its authors indicated that it was 'Islamophobic' for inspectors from the education watchdog Ofsted to question why young girls were wearing hijabs in primary schools.
The report also gave examples of speech which could be declared 'Islamophobic' – for example the claim that "Muslim identity" has "a unique propensity for terrorism".
The APPG's report also outlined five 'tests' which would determine whether speech was 'Islamophobic'. The NSS said these would "clearly render legitimate commentary and debate about Islam beyond the bounds of reasonable public debate".
The letter said erroneous claims of 'Islamophobia' had become "a cover for" prejudice and bigotry rather than tackling it. The signatories also said they were united by their "commitment to tackle anti-Muslim bigotry coupled with the belief that the fundamental right to speak freely is precious and essential".
The NSS submitted evidence to the APPG's inquiry on the matter before its report was published.
The APPG's report acknowledged the concerns raised by the NSS, along with the Southall Black Sisters group which campaigns for the rights of women from minority backgrounds. But it based its conclusions largely on the interpretations of groups which claimed to represent the Muslim 'community'.
In the wake of the report high-profile Muslim groups have pushed the government and major parties to adopt the definition.
According to last week's Observer Harun Khan, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has called on politicians to "understand the importance of listening to communities" and adopt the definition.
Yvette Cooper, the chair of the home affairs select committee, and the minister for faith Lord Bourne responded enthusiastically to the report at its launch.
The government has previously indicated that it does not intend to adopt a definition. In March Home Office minister Victoria Atkins told the Commons that the government did not "accept the need for a definitive definition".
Explaining his decision to write and coordinate the letter, Mr Evans said: "Racism and anti-Muslim bigotry need to be confronted, but proposals to promote the vague concept of Islamophobia seriously risk restricting public discussion and making matters worse.
"People opposing gender segregation in schools, forced hijab wearing and the non-stun slaughter of animals have all been condemned as 'Islamophobic'. It has become impossible to fight for any internal change in Muslim communities without encountering the slur.
"Prosecuting anti-Muslim crimes and challenging bigoted attitudes towards Muslims are both essential in a free society in which citizenship is open to those from all faiths and none. But rendering legitimate free speech beyond the bounds of acceptable debate would be a major error."
Full text of letter
Dear Home Secretary
We are writing to you regarding the recent report from the APPG on British Muslims, entitled 'Islamophobia defined'. We wish to highlight our concerns with the report and to urge the Government to resist its proposal to adopt a definition of 'Islamophobia'. Some of us also highlighted these concerns in written and oral submissions to the APPG inquiry on the matter.
The report includes many examples of anti-Muslim bigotry and hate crimes which should be universally condemned. However, the genuine problems identified in the report will only be exacerbated by adopting the vague and unworkable definition of 'Islamophobia' it proposes.
While we believe that in a liberal secular society individuals should be afforded respect and protection, we are clear that ideas should not. We are concerned that the report's proposed definition of 'Islamophobia' conflates hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims with criticism of Islam.
The report's core point is that the Government should make it policy to define Islamophobia as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness". However, "expressions of Muslimness" can effectively be translated to mean Islamic practices. In a society which is free and open, such practices must remain open to scrutiny and debate.
Further, the report's backers are keen to stress the need to avoid shutting down criticism of religion. However, advancing the report's ill-defined concept of 'Islamophobia' and aligning it with the five 'tests' it recommends to determine whether speech is 'Islamophobic', will clearly render legitimate commentary and debate about Islam beyond the bounds of reasonable public debate.
Far from combatting prejudice and bigotry, erroneous claims of 'Islamophobia' have become a cover for it. LGBT rights campaigners have been called 'Islamophobes' for criticising the views of Muslim clerics on homosexuality. Meanwhile, ex-Muslims and feminist activists have been called 'Islamophobes' for criticising certain Islamic views and practices relating to women. Even liberal and secular Muslims have been branded 'Islamophobes'.
While we represent a wide spectrum of beliefs, opinions and politics, the one thing that unites us is our commitment to tackle anti-Muslim bigotry coupled with the belief that the fundamental right to speak freely is precious and essential.
We therefore seek a meeting with you to further explain our concerns and to seek reassurances that the Government will not treat the civil liberties of British citizens as an afterthought in its efforts to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice. Please do let us know if you would be open to doing so.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Evans, Chief Executive, National Secular Society
Mohammed Amin MBE
Amina Lone, Co-Director Social Action and Research Foundation, Women's Right Campaigner
Maajid Nawaz, Founder, Quilliam
Yasmin Rehman, Women and Human Rights Activist
Pragna Patel, Southall Black Sisters
Gita Sahgal, Centre for Secular Space
