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: Council’s ban on religious offence is an insult to voters
Posted: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:11
The National Secular Society has called on Belfast City Council to reconsider an "anti-democratic" motion which bans "offensive expression" about religious beliefs during council business.
Last week the council passed a motion granting power to the chair of meetings to act when members used "offensive expression" towards people or sections of society. That included expression that showed "contempt" in relation to "religious belief".
The motion read: "A member shall not impute motives or use offensive expression in reference to any person or section of society, including any such expression that shows contempt in relation to race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious belief, age or disability."
Sinn Fein's Charlene O'Hara, the councillor who proposed the motion, told the BBC's Talkback show: "This isn't about free speech. This is specifically about hate speech. It's not about stemming debate. It's about making sure the language we choose to use is not going to be hurtful or offend anybody."
Cllr O'Hara said she proposed the motion to "strengthen the rule of the chair" and "remind members that we should be more mindful of our conduct". She added that over the past "six to eight months" there had been objectionable statements in the chamber and it was "not acceptable that we think that some of the comments that have been made in recent months are OK".
The vote was split along sectarian lines, with Sinn Fein and Alliance councillors supporting it and unionists opposing it. A standing order already prohibited councillors from using offensive language towards other members.
Jeff Dudgeon of the Ulster Unionists proposed an amendment to the motion in an attempt to pass it to a committee. After the vote he told Talkback: "It hasn't been thought through. No legal opinion has been provided to the councillors and that's normally necessary, especially on a human rights issue where there's a freedom of expression aspect to it."
Cllr Dudgeon said the powers it would confer on the chair – which is usually Belfast's lord mayor – were "ludicrous" and "way beyond any normal rules of debate". He added that attempts to change the language to "grossly offensive" had been ruled down amid opposition from the Alliance and Sinn Fein.
Proponents of the motion cited comments by Jolene Bunting, an independent councillor with links to the far-right group Britain First, as an example of the speech that would be curbed. Cllr Bunting was heavily criticised for saying during the debate: "Do we have to wait until people are dying on our streets until people actually speak about Islam, before we speak about the Koran, and what it says in it?"
Chris Sloggett, the NSS's communications officer, called the motion "an anti-democratic insult to voters".
"Those who care about our democracy can agree that we should promote civil discourse in parliamentary environments and encourage our representatives to be reasonable. But this is because we expect them to think for themselves and embrace nuanced argument, including on contentious ideas such as religion. Parliament and council chambers are the last places where we should be trying to limit speech.
"One lord mayor cannot be trusted with the power to act as censor based on a poorly-defined idea of 'hate speech'. This motion risks effectively stripping the people who voted for some councillors of their right to have their views represented.
"It's unclear why it is necessary now, in a city which has not needed it despite seeing plenty of sectarian strife in recent decades.
"And it will not even do what it was designed for. Offering religious minorities special protections many of them do not even want is a gift to those who say they cannot be expected to fit in to society."
Cllr O'Hara also told Talkback: "It's just unfortunate that we can only limit that [offensive speech] within the chamber." Mr Sloggett described these words as "a remarkable admission of desire to limit free speech among the general populace".
NSS: promote free speech as “a positive value” on campus
Posted: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:23
The National Secular Society has told a parliamentary committee free speech should be protected "not only as a legal concept, but as a positive value" on university campuses.
The NSS said universities' "unique role" – as independent bodies dependent on public support and expected to operate by particular values – justified such an approach.
In a submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), the Society added that student unions (SUs) have commonly made critics of religion the target of unjustified censorship in universities. The JCHR is currently holding an inquiry into freedom of speech at universities.
The NSS said it was concerned that "semi-public institutions" were using restrictions on free expression "in a manner at odds with their legitimate function, to target specific groups or viewpoints".
"This is a common theme we have seen in the targeting of groups critical of religion, with the claim usually being criticism of religion is akin to harassment, incitement or creating a hostile environment," the Society wrote.
Examples included students at UCL and LSE being threatened with disciplinary action for sharing a Jesus & Mo satirical comic, which their unions labelled "offensive" and "not in accordance with our values". The LSE Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society was later threatened with physical expulsion and its stall vandalised by union officials after wearing T-shirts featuring the comic. Reading University's SU expelled their Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society from the fresher's fair over a pineapple being named Mohammed to promote a debate on 'blasphemy', which was apparently "causing upset and distress".
A society at London South Bank University saw its posters (featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster) banned for being "offensive". Bath student union officials and university chaplains ordered a comedy show featuring Mohammed to be censored, arguing it caused "great offence".
The submission referred to particular efforts to marginalise secular Muslims and ex-Muslims, including a student union banning human rights advocate Maryam Namazie from speaking about apostasy because it could be "insulting [to] other faiths", and students disrupting her speech and intimidating attendants at an event at Goldsmiths.
The NSS also said there had "undoubtedly" been incidents in which the Prevent strategy had been overzealously applied, restricting free speech. But it added that "sensationalism and misrepresentation of Prevent by those opposed to any form of counter-extremism strategy" had also had an impact, along with concerns about the definition of extremism and the state's role in challenging it.
The Society also noted the continuing presence of fringe speakers on campus. In a report on the 2016-17 academic year the counter-extremist group Student Rights said 107 events had featured extremist speakers. Only one had attempted to provide a balanced platform.
"The continued prevalence of extremist speakers does not suggest that the Prevent duty is restricting freedom of expression even to the extent that would be permitted by the [European Convention on Human Rights]," the NSS wrote.
Universities have a statutory responsibility to ensure lawful speech on campuses is protected, under the Education Act 1986. Case law under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has established that this should not impede efforts to prevent unlawful speech, such as incitement to violence or harassment, or uphold equality duties.
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 would extend universities' free speech duty to their Student Unions. But Universities already have a legal obligation to manage oversite of their Student Unions, and can extend the free speech duty to Student Unions through agreement.
The NSS added that universities could further fulfil their free speech duties by ensuring SUs did not have a monopoly of control over potential speech platforms on campus.
Alastair Lichten, the NSS's education campaigner, said university policy should reflect the fact that free speech was "an essential ingredient of a free society".
"Universities are a crucial battleground in the fight to ensure people, regardless of their opinions, can speak, be heard and be challenged in the public sphere.
"For centuries religious authorities have used a variety of spurious justifications to prevent people from saying or hearing what they want. But criticism of religions should be as normal as criticism of any other sets of ideas.
"And while university authorities should be vigilant about incitement to violence and harassment, they should also bear in mind that religious extremists – rather than their critics – are often the ones responsible for such behaviour."
Image: Newcastle University Students Union, taken by Andrew Curtis. Shared under Creative Commons licence 2.0.
