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: Irish referendum should prompt “celebration of free speech”
Posted: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:00
The National Secular Society has said the forthcoming referendum on blasphemy in Ireland should "prompt a debate about celebrating free speech as a positive value".
Last week the Irish government confirmed that it would hold a referendum later this year on removing blasphemy as an offence from its constitution. The vote is expected to take place in October.
Article 40 of the Irish constitution says the "publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law".
Ireland's justice minister Charlie Flanagan said: "In terms of Ireland's international reputation, this is an important step. By removing this provision from our constitution, we can send a strong message to the world that laws against blasphemy do not reflect Irish values and that we do not believe such laws should exist."
The relevant section of Article 40 was written into Ireland's constitution in 1937. In 2009 Ireland also passed the Defamation Act, which banned the "publishing or uttering [of] matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion". Transgressing the law could result in a fine of up to €25,000.
Last year the Irish police investigated actor Stephen Fry under the Defamation Act over an interview he gave in 2015 in which he asked: "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"
Voters will be asked specifically about blasphemy's place in the constitution. The repeal of Article 40 would not automatically mean the repeal of the relevant section of the Defamation Act, but the justice minister's remarks suggest the government would then move quickly to abolish it.
NSS spokesperson Chris Sloggett said the removal of Ireland's blasphemy laws would be "a welcome acknowledgement that blasphemy will never be a crime and a statement of solidarity with freethinkers around the world".
"We hope this decision prompts similar action in Scotland, which retains laws against blasphemy, and encourages tougher action on countries which use blasphemy laws to deny their citizens the right to freedom of thought and expression.
"We also hope it will prompt a wider debate about celebrating free speech as a positive value, rather than seeing it as something which needs to be grudgingly accommodated and apologised for."
We've campaigned for the repeal of blasphemy laws since our founding in 1866 and we were instrumental in their repeal in England and Wales in 2008.
Earlier this year the Scottish National Party committed to repealing Scotland's blasphemy laws.
Last year a US government report found laws restricting freedom of expression on religious issues in 71 countries, without including Scotland. And in December the 2017 Freedom of Thought Report, from the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), said free thought on religious issues was in "a pattern of regression on a global scale".
The IHEU report said persecution of the non-religious was increasing and 85 countries – more than four in ten of the world's total – 'severely' discriminated against non-religious individuals. In 30 of these countries, the violations were 'grave'.
Ireland's referendum is likely to be held on the same day as its presidential election and a referendum on changing a constitutional clause that prioritises a woman's domestic role over work. Ministers are reportedly keen to continue instigating social change after last month's vote to repeal the eighth amendment, which effectively banned abortion in almost all circumstances.
JCHR: “confusion and complexity” restricting campus free speech
Posted: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:47
A parliamentary committee has said critics of religion are among those whose free speech is most likely to be restricted at universities.
A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) said "incidents in which free speech is restricted often revolve around discussion of key controversial or divisive issues" including "humanist/secular groups critiquing religion".
The JCHR also found that the restrictions students place on free speech "should not be exaggerated" and it was "not a pervasive problem". It said the evidence it had taken showed overall "support for the principle of freedom of speech among the student population".
The committee referenced attempts by students at Goldsmiths University to prevent National Secular Society honorary associate Maryam Namazie's talk on blasphemy as an example of "unacceptable incidents where freedom of speech has been restricted" through harassment.
It added that "safe space" policies "cannot cover the whole of the university or university life without impinging on rights to free speech".
The report referred to the NSS's submission to the committee's consultation, which detailed examples of harassment of groups critical of religion by student unions, universities and other groups. The NSS told the committee free speech should be protected "not only as a legal concept, but as a positive value" on campuses.
The report said "the right to (peaceful) protest is vital", student societies should "not stop other student societies from holding their meetings" and "incidents of unacceptable intimidatory behaviour by protestors intent on preventing free speech and debate" should be stopped.
In response NSS education and schools officer Alastair Lichten said: "In our submission to the JCHR we warned of the need to beware of the 'competing sensationalised media narratives; the first that ordinary student activism, protest and governance is part of a broad 'politically correct' attack on free speech, the second that efforts to challenge extremism are a front to restrict dissident speech'. This report sensibly spurns such sensationalism.
"The report affirms that neither 'PC' hordes of protesters nor shadowy agents of Prevent are banning free speech on campuses, but that there are legitimate concerns. Student unions and universities can help freedom of speech flourish by challenging the 'intolerant attitudes' and 'unnecessary bureaucracy' identified in this report.
"Where anti-discrimination or harassment policies are being smeared or misrepresented as a 'chronic problem' stifling free expression, or misused to target specific unpopular viewpoints, this should be unacceptable. In our evidence to the committee, we said that the Office for Students (OfS) could challenge misunderstandings and sensationalism by reporting on the extent to which university or SU policies meet their free speech obligations, along with quantitative data on concerns raised and the outcome of any complaints."
In a section on "the way forward" the committee issued similar advice, saying: "We would expect the OfS to intervene if problems emerged at particular institutions. They should ensure that university policies do not inhibit legal free speech and are not overly burdensome."
The committee said the OfS should have "an accessible means of feedback" so students could report issues related to free speech. It also said the OfS should visit universities that have faced issues regarding free speech and report on the issue annually.
The report did not give any examples of events being cancelled or disrupted due to the Prevent duty (no higher education institution provided such examples to a judicial review). However the committee noted the potential "chilling effect" of the Prevent duty, with some groups saying it would make them less likely to invite potentially controversial speakers, and others raising concerns about the poorly defined term "extremism". The committee singled out the "fear and confusion over what the Prevent duty entails" as one of the factors limiting free speech on campuses.
Mr Lichten said: "We should differentiate between any chilling effect caused by the misapplication of or flaws in the Prevent duty, and the chilling effect of the fearmongering and mythmaking that surrounds it."
The report comes on the same day that the Home Office released new figures showing that over the last year 6,093 individuals were referred to the Prevent programme. Concerns over Islamist extremism (61%) and far-right extremism (16%) were the largest cause of referrals to Prevent (down 26% and up 28% respectively).
There was also a 30% drop in the number of people referred to Prevent over Islamist concerns who were subsequently referred to the Channel programme – a voluntary initiative that provides a multi-agency approach to support people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. For those referred over extreme far right concerns there was a 27% increase.
Image: Preston Business Centre, University of Central Lancashire, by Dave Brown, via Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 2.0].
