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 criticises Facebook over ban on ‘halal lion king’ satirist
Posted: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:35
The National Secular Society has called Facebook's decision to remove the page of a satirist who mocks Islamist preachers "a very poor reflection" on its attitude to free expression.
Waleed Wain, a British comedian who goes by the name Veedu Vidz online, makes videos satirising well-known Islamist preachers, Islamic extremism and anti-Muslim bigotry.
In a video published on 23 February Mr Wain said Facebook had removed his page indefinitely.
The page was previously banned for one month after offended viewers repeatedly reported the videos for "breaking the Facebook community guidelines," according to Mr Wain.
When the ban was lifted in February, the Veedu Vidz Facebook page shared the video "Halal Movie Review: The Lion King". The video parodies Zakir Naik, an Islamist preacher who has been banned in the UK and other countries for promoting terrorism. Within 24 hours of sharing the video, the Veedu Vidz page was "unpublished for repeatedly posting things that don't comply with the Facebook terms".
Mr Wain has appealed against Facebook's decision to unpublish his page. On Tuesday Facebook said it had reviewed his appeal and the page could once again be viewed publicly.
Mr Wain said: "I did not realise posting videos of Zakir Naik or Dawah Man [another Islamist preacher parodied on Veedu Vidz] could get you banned, especially when they can post their own videos talking about their own beliefs pretty frequently, pretty clearly, openly.
"And they should be allowed to express their opinions, and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but when I express my opinion on them, I get banned."
In an interview with Clarion Project in 2017 about Veedu Vidz, Mr Wain said: "My aims are twofold: to entertain people and make them laugh, and secondly to use comedy and satire as a tool for critical thinking and open discussion.
"I am not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim, but pro free speech, pro critical and rational thinking. It is not my aim to take down Islam or drag it through the mud, but to shine on it the light of free thought, natural curiosity and good honest humour. I imitate and mock certain religious leaders not because I hate them or hold any personal grudges against them, but to expose the silly and facile nature of their arguments."
Maajid Nawaz, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society and Secularist of the Year 2018 nominee, spoke out in support of Mr Wain. "I support this Muslim satirist (he even parodied me once) who uses comedy to interrogate modern Muslim attitudes (finally!)," he tweeted.
The NSS also expressed its support for Veedu Vidz. "While Facebook has a right to set its own guidelines for use of its service, it should think very carefully about how those guidelines are implemented and what impact they have," said Megan Manson, NSS campaigns officer.
"The current situation is that while preachers such as Zakir Naik, who support terrorism and the death penalty for LGBT people and apostates, are given a platform on Facebook, those who challenge or mock these views are censored.
"This is a very poor reflection on Facebook and its attitudes to liberal values and to free expression."
ECHR: Lithuania infringed free expression over religious icons
Posted: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:03
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Lithuania violated the right to free expression by fining a fashion company for using religious imagery in an advertising campaign.
Lithuania's Government fined Sekmadienis 580€ over adverts which featured models resembling the virgin Mary and Jesus in suggestive poses in 2012. Its State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (SCRPA) claimed that the ads – which contained captions such as "Jesus, what trousers!" and "Jesus and Mary, what are you wearing?" – were contrary to public morals.
SCRPA reached its decision after consulting representatives from a Lithuanian advertising agency, the State Inspectorate of Non-Food Products and the Roman Catholic Church.
On Tuesday the court found that Lithuania had violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It noted that freedom of expression "extends to ideas which offend, shock or disturb" and that in a pluralistic democracy "those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism".
The court ordered Lithuania to award Sekmadienis 580€, the equivalent of the original fine it had been wrongly ordered to pay. It also criticised Lithuania for its lack of clarity in justifying how Sekmadienis's advertising campaign was offensive or incompatible with public morals.
The seven-judge panel added: "In the court's view, it cannot be assumed that everyone who has indicated that he or she belongs to the Christian faith would necessarily consider the advertisements offensive, and the Government have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
"Nonetheless, even assuming that the majority of the Lithuanian population were indeed to find the advertisements offensive, the court reiterates that it would be incompatible with the underlying values of the convention if the exercise of convention rights by a minority group were made conditional on its being accepted by the majority.
"Were this so, a minority group's rights to freedom of expression would become merely theoretical rather than practical and effective as required by the convention."
Sekmadienis took Lithuania to the European Court of Human Rights in 2014, after its appeals in the national courts failed.
