Newsline 21 October 2016

This month we have seen the grotesque spectacle of Louis Smith being hounded for mocking Islamic prayer and causing 'offence', yet all around the Islamic world people face persecution and death for their beliefs, atheism, or apostasy. Only one of these things is truly offensive.

Last week we called the media trial of Louis Smith out for what it is: a de facto blasphemy law, and Charlie Hebdo survivor Zineb El Rhazoui got it exactly right when she said this week that Islamist groups in the West, unable to pass blasphemy laws here (for now), clamp down on dissent with charges of 'Islamophobia'.

We're speaking out for the right to mock, satirise or criticise Islam, or any other idea. That's why we were pleased to see the press regulator IPSO giving a clear ruling that you can express whatever personal view about religion you like. Anti-Muslim bigotry, just like any other form of bigotry, must be called out, but it is vital to draw the fundamental distinction between people and ideas. Ideas should have no special protection and must be open to challenge.

All of these cases show the need for a principled secular voice to articulate a pro-free speech message and advocate for secularist principles. You can help us do this by joining the National Secular Society today.

This week's news from the National Secular Society

	Press regulator sides with free speech in ruling on The Sun’s hijab article News \| Thu, 20th Oct 2016 The press regulator IPSO has cleared Kelvin MacKenzie over an article in The Sun which asked why Channel 4 had "a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice". In July Kelvin MacKenzie wrote of Channel 4's coverage of the Nice attack: "The presenter was not one of the regulars — Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Matt Frei or Cathy Newman — but a young lady wearing a hijab. "Her name is Fatima Manji and she has been with the station for four years. Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim[?] "Of course not." Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear said that the article amounted to religious discrimination and Manji complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Manji said that "the article had targeted her deliberately, causing her intimidation and distress, and whipping up hatred against her, and Muslims generally." She also said that the article had "inaccurately" claimed that Islam was "a violent religion". In response MacKenzie said that the article was not directed at Manji personally, and "was not about the propriety of a journalist having religious faith, but about the propriety of public figures wearing outwardly religious garments, in the context of a story with an unavoidable religious angle." IPSO summarised MacKenzie's response: "The column formed part of a public debate about presenters wearing symbolic items on screen, which had previously been seen in discussions about a Channel 4 presenter's decision not to wear a poppy, and the wearing of a crucifix by a presenter on BBC News." The Sun rejected the claim that describing Islam as a "violent religion" was inaccurate or that it violated Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The press regulator then considered whether the article had breached three clauses of the Editors' Code including accuracy, harassment and discrimination. The committee which examined the complaint found that "There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others" and that it "contained pejorative references to Islam." However it found that the Editor's Code "prohibits prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual on account of, amongst other things, that individual's religion" but that it does not "prohibit prejudicial or pejorative references to a particular religion, even though such disparaging criticisms may cause distress and offence". "Were it otherwise, the freedom of the press to engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices, including the wearing of religious symbols while reading the news, would be restricted." "The columnist's view that Islam is 'clearly a violent religion' was a statement of his opinion," IPSO said. The regulator concluded that "While the columnist's opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express." The National Secular Society welcomed the ruling. Campaigns director Stephen Evans commented: "Whatever your opinion of the points made in his article Kelvin MacKenzie should be free to express his views. His comments clearly didn't amount to 'incitement' and we're therefore pleased to see the right to freedom of speech has won in this case." See also: Why Ipso was correct: freedom of expression means the freedom to offend.
	Church of England to consider cutting requirement for regular services News \| Tue, 18th Oct 2016 The Church of England is considering steps to abandon its current national obligations by lifting the requirement to hold regular services. A paper published by the Church is proposing "to relax the requirements for regular worship in parish churches in sparsely-populated benefices". If the reform goes ahead the requirement under canon law for each parish to conduct communion, morning and evening prayers every Sunday and on other special days would be lifted. The Archbishops' Council has already approved the proposal, one of a raft of reforms set out by the Church's 'Simplification Task Group'. The task group aims to make the Church "more fit for purpose for worship, ministry and mission" and Christian Today has described the group's purpose as "stopping the 'terrifying' decline" of the Church. Keith Porteous Wood, the NSS's executive director, commented "The Church's own justification for the huge privilege of Establishment rests in part on its presence in parishes throughout England. If these obligations are removed, it further weakens the case for the continuance of Establishment, as does the reason behind the proposed change – the paucity of congregants. It is not unknown for there to be no one at all attending a service." The move comes amid sustained decline in church attendance – something the Church of England is trying to compensate for through its faith schools. The number of people attending Church of England services every week recently fell below 1 million for the first time. Less than 2% of the population regularly attend Anglican services and the Church expects this figure to decline in the next 30 years. The chair of the task group, Bishop Pete Broadbent, said: "In rural parishes, no vicar can actually get around all their parishes so technically, they're breaking the law. All we're doing is putting the law in line with what already happens." The Church of England advertises itself as "A Christian presence in every community" which plays "a vital role in the life of the nation, proclaiming the Christian gospel in words and actions and providing services of Christian worship and praise" with its "network of parishes cover the country".
	Joint Committee on Human Rights challenges the Government on ‘extremism disruption orders’ News \| Fri, 21st Oct 2016 The Government has been criticised for failing to offer more detail on its long-awaited proposals for 'extremism disruption orders' – vaguely defined measures which the NSS has criticised for the damage they could cause to freedom of speech. After receiving the Government's response to criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), Harriet Harman, who chairs the JCHR, wrote that she was disappointed the Government hadn't committed to the publication of a draft bill on the new civil orders intended to tackle non-violent extremism. In a letter to the minister responsible for safeguarding and countering extremism, she said that it was "concerning that the Government has still not been able to identify any clear gaps in the legislative framework that any new legislation introducing civil orders is designed to fill." The Government has promised a consultation but Harman said that "any consultation exercise which does not provide a clear legal definition of what is meant by extremism (and in particular non-violent extremism) would be futile." She concluded that "it is perhaps unfortunate to announce a Bill in two successive Queen's Speeches which has not been fully thought through in advance." When security minister Karen Bradley MP appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) she gave what campaigners called a "baffling array of definitions" for what the Government meant by extremism. The Conservative Government initially proposed 'extremism disruption orders' (EDOs) after the measures had been blocked by the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Their stated purpose is to tackle 'non-violent extremism' but the Government has been unable to offer a clear definition of the 'extremism' that the EDOs would counter. In a report on the proposals written in July, the Committee concluded that the Government appeared to have "retreated from its original proposals for Banning Orders, Closure Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders". In response to the JCHR's report the Government said that: "The proposed civil order powers, announced in this year's Queen's Speech, are concerned with a small number of the most serious cases where extremists' behaviour threatens others and causes real harm both to individuals and communities. "The Government will consult fully on any proposed measures, including civil orders, before they are introduced. Any consultation will set out any gaps in existing legislation that new powers are intended to fill." The Government said its proposals would extend to "tackling all the harms extremists contribute to." NSS spokesperson, Benjamin Jones, commented: "We await the Government's consultation but that will be a meaningless exercise unless it sets out exactly what the new orders are, how they will be activated, and unless the Government actually defines 'extremism'. "Without a definition of 'non-violent extremism' any new measures seriously risk infringing upon freedom of expression." A broad coalition including the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute are opposed to the controversial proposals. The JCHR also commented on Government plans to regulate out of school educational settings providing "intensive tuition, training or instruction to children" – a move welcomed by the NSS. The Government said that currently "the safeguards which protect children in schools and childcare settings are not mandatory in out of school settings, and children are more vulnerable to harm." "Our proposals to regulate them are therefore aimed at ensuring that action can be taken where there are genuine concerns that they are failing to ensure the safety and welfare of children." The Committee warned that there were "grave concerns around Government proposals for a regime of compulsory registration" but the Government argued that it was considering how to ensure its proposals were "targeted" and "proportionate".
	The new UN Secretary General must not allow religion to override human rights Opinion \| Fri, 21st Oct 2016 UN Secretary General designate needs to ignore Catholic pressure to row back on Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights and Gay Rights, writes Keith Porteous Wood. The former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres has been officially appointed as the next UN secretary-general. I for one wish the Secretary General designate every success in his new role. He has clearly done a magnificent job as the UN's high commissioner for refugees and this as well as his political experience as Prime Minister of Portugal could hardly be better experience for his new job. In our increasing fractious world, the position of Secretary General of the United Nations becomes ever more important. We need the best person for the job regardless of their religion or belief. Strikingly, Mr Guterres is described by the normally measured Agence France Press as a "fervent Catholic". It says that while he allowed a referendum in 1996 on liberalization of Portugal's strict anti-abortion laws, his opposition to any change in the law contributed to the referendum's failure. This decision was overturned by another referendum in 2007. Abortion will have featured little if at all in Mr Guterres' activities on refugees, but will be important in the culture war raging at the UN alongside issues associated with contraception and homosexuality. These are also areas where conservative Catholic doctrine comes into conflict with individuals' human rights. Mr Guterres is of course entitled to believe and practise whatever he wishes in his own private life, but he must not impose them in his role as Secretary General. If, as reported, he campaigned against any change in the swingeing anti-abortion laws in Portugal, he may have crossed the line by imposing Catholic doctrine on others in contravention of their human rights. At least one extremist Catholic pressure group appears already to be rubbing their hands with glee at his appointment. C-Fam, an NGO that claims the UN "undermine[s] the family" and is opposed to what it describes as "the UN system's promotion of abortion and LGBT rights" has already issued a statement congratulating Mr Guterres (see p. 26). C-Fam points to Mr Guterres' "pro-life record", hoping "this reflects how he would exercise the important office [with which] he is being entrusted" and encouraging Mr Guterres to "defend the inherent dignity and worth of every human life from conception as well as the place of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society". The Vatican takes the United Nations very seriously and is very powerful there. While the Vatican may be the smallest state in the world it is very active at the UN. At the Human Rights Council, it is the only country I have seen that always has two representatives in the chamber listening to every syllable as though their lives depend on it, handing over the headphones to each other like relay runners do the baton. The liberal international group, Catholics for Choice (CfC), clearly regrets the Vatican/Holy See's status at the UN, the only religion to have a seat there, pointing out that "the Holy See is able to place items on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly, and it enjoys greater access to the plenary sessions of the UN and its main committees, as well as to the Security Council". And the Vatican can - and does - link up with others such as many Muslim majority nations who have similar conservative social agendas. CfC points out that official documents from the last 20 years "are replete with objections" of the Holy See to the "majority consensus" in favour of "the expansion and strengthening of Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights" and "Gay Rights". Similarly, the Centre for Reproductive Rights considers the Vatican obstruct[s] women's sexual and reproductive health and rights, and, like CfC, questions the legitimacy of it being able to do so. The Vatican's opposition to "artificial" contraception - a doctrine supported by very few ordinary Catholics - must lead to greater poverty, not to mention that obstructing the distribution of condoms must contribute to the needless transmission of disease. As CFC observe: "doctors, nurses, and counsellors at Catholic facilities are often forbidden to distribute condoms as part of HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment programs". When acting as Secretary General I would urge Guterres to embrace rather than obstruct the expansion and strengthening of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights and Gay Rights. The world will be watching and hoping fervently that he will not be unduly influenced by regressive religious forces.

Read elsewhere

	Zineb el Rhazoui, Charlie Hebdo survivor, on why the world needs to ‘destroy Islamic Fascism’ Undeterred by fatwas and death threats, the author Zineb el Rhazoui has released an incendiary and thoughtful new book, bound to provoke debate. Emma-Kate Symons interviews the author for the New York Times.
	Withdrawing children from collective worship is no easy answer A mother writes about the dilemma she faces over withdrawing her daughter from collective worship: "Knowing our daughter would be utterly mortified to be excluded in such a way, and would see it as a punishment, we opted to let her stay".

NSS Speaks Out

Our campaigns officer Alastair Lichten travelled up to Manchester on Tuesday to take part in a discussion with Radio 5 Live on faith schools. You can hear the discussion here from 2 hours 7 minutes in.

On Sunday we spoke about the ongoing trial-by-media of Louis Smith and defended the right to mock Islam in an interview with BBC Three Counties. You can hear NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones debate this from 1 hour 4 minutes here. The Catholic Herald picked up our views on this as well.

We were also mentioned this week in a Guardian article on Desert Island Discs and a poll that showed most Britons wouldn't want to take a Bible with them to their desert island.

Quote of the Week

"The fate of an illiterate berry picker on death row for blasphemy has gripped Pakistan in a [furore] of religious fanaticism. Few examples better illustrate the misplaced priorities of the Pakistani government and the country's Islamist ideologues."
Farahnaz Ispahani and Nina Shea, Wall Street Journal.

Essay of the Week

Sikh fundamentalism is resurgent in the UK – as seen in recent protests against inter-faith marriage.
Sukhwant Dhaliwal, OpenDemocracy.

	Press regulator sides with free speech in ruling on The Sun’s hijab article News \| Thu, 20th Oct 2016 The press regulator IPSO has cleared Kelvin MacKenzie over an article in The Sun which asked why Channel 4 had "a presenter in a hijab fronting coverage of Muslim terror in Nice". In July Kelvin MacKenzie wrote of Channel 4's coverage of the Nice attack: "The presenter was not one of the regulars — Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Matt Frei or Cathy Newman — but a young lady wearing a hijab. "Her name is Fatima Manji and she has been with the station for four years. Was it appropriate for her to be on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim[?] "Of course not." Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear said that the article amounted to religious discrimination and Manji complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Manji said that "the article had targeted her deliberately, causing her intimidation and distress, and whipping up hatred against her, and Muslims generally." She also said that the article had "inaccurately" claimed that Islam was "a violent religion". In response MacKenzie said that the article was not directed at Manji personally, and "was not about the propriety of a journalist having religious faith, but about the propriety of public figures wearing outwardly religious garments, in the context of a story with an unavoidable religious angle." IPSO summarised MacKenzie's response: "The column formed part of a public debate about presenters wearing symbolic items on screen, which had previously been seen in discussions about a Channel 4 presenter's decision not to wear a poppy, and the wearing of a crucifix by a presenter on BBC News." The Sun rejected the claim that describing Islam as a "violent religion" was inaccurate or that it violated Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice. The press regulator then considered whether the article had breached three clauses of the Editors' Code including accuracy, harassment and discrimination. The committee which examined the complaint found that "There can be no doubt that this was deeply offensive to the complainant and caused widespread concern and distress to others" and that it "contained pejorative references to Islam." However it found that the Editor's Code "prohibits prejudicial or pejorative references to an individual on account of, amongst other things, that individual's religion" but that it does not "prohibit prejudicial or pejorative references to a particular religion, even though such disparaging criticisms may cause distress and offence". "Were it otherwise, the freedom of the press to engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices, including the wearing of religious symbols while reading the news, would be restricted." "The columnist's view that Islam is 'clearly a violent religion' was a statement of his opinion," IPSO said. The regulator concluded that "While the columnist's opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express." The National Secular Society welcomed the ruling. Campaigns director Stephen Evans commented: "Whatever your opinion of the points made in his article Kelvin MacKenzie should be free to express his views. His comments clearly didn't amount to 'incitement' and we're therefore pleased to see the right to freedom of speech has won in this case." See also: Why Ipso was correct: freedom of expression means the freedom to offend.
	Church of England to consider cutting requirement for regular services News \| Tue, 18th Oct 2016 The Church of England is considering steps to abandon its current national obligations by lifting the requirement to hold regular services. A paper published by the Church is proposing "to relax the requirements for regular worship in parish churches in sparsely-populated benefices". If the reform goes ahead the requirement under canon law for each parish to conduct communion, morning and evening prayers every Sunday and on other special days would be lifted. The Archbishops' Council has already approved the proposal, one of a raft of reforms set out by the Church's 'Simplification Task Group'. The task group aims to make the Church "more fit for purpose for worship, ministry and mission" and Christian Today has described the group's purpose as "stopping the 'terrifying' decline" of the Church. Keith Porteous Wood, the NSS's executive director, commented "The Church's own justification for the huge privilege of Establishment rests in part on its presence in parishes throughout England. If these obligations are removed, it further weakens the case for the continuance of Establishment, as does the reason behind the proposed change – the paucity of congregants. It is not unknown for there to be no one at all attending a service." The move comes amid sustained decline in church attendance – something the Church of England is trying to compensate for through its faith schools. The number of people attending Church of England services every week recently fell below 1 million for the first time. Less than 2% of the population regularly attend Anglican services and the Church expects this figure to decline in the next 30 years. The chair of the task group, Bishop Pete Broadbent, said: "In rural parishes, no vicar can actually get around all their parishes so technically, they're breaking the law. All we're doing is putting the law in line with what already happens." The Church of England advertises itself as "A Christian presence in every community" which plays "a vital role in the life of the nation, proclaiming the Christian gospel in words and actions and providing services of Christian worship and praise" with its "network of parishes cover the country".
	Joint Committee on Human Rights challenges the Government on ‘extremism disruption orders’ News \| Fri, 21st Oct 2016 The Government has been criticised for failing to offer more detail on its long-awaited proposals for 'extremism disruption orders' – vaguely defined measures which the NSS has criticised for the damage they could cause to freedom of speech. After receiving the Government's response to criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), Harriet Harman, who chairs the JCHR, wrote that she was disappointed the Government hadn't committed to the publication of a draft bill on the new civil orders intended to tackle non-violent extremism. In a letter to the minister responsible for safeguarding and countering extremism, she said that it was "concerning that the Government has still not been able to identify any clear gaps in the legislative framework that any new legislation introducing civil orders is designed to fill." The Government has promised a consultation but Harman said that "any consultation exercise which does not provide a clear legal definition of what is meant by extremism (and in particular non-violent extremism) would be futile." She concluded that "it is perhaps unfortunate to announce a Bill in two successive Queen's Speeches which has not been fully thought through in advance." When security minister Karen Bradley MP appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) she gave what campaigners called a "baffling array of definitions" for what the Government meant by extremism. The Conservative Government initially proposed 'extremism disruption orders' (EDOs) after the measures had been blocked by the Liberal Democrats in coalition. Their stated purpose is to tackle 'non-violent extremism' but the Government has been unable to offer a clear definition of the 'extremism' that the EDOs would counter. In a report on the proposals written in July, the Committee concluded that the Government appeared to have "retreated from its original proposals for Banning Orders, Closure Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders". In response to the JCHR's report the Government said that: "The proposed civil order powers, announced in this year's Queen's Speech, are concerned with a small number of the most serious cases where extremists' behaviour threatens others and causes real harm both to individuals and communities. "The Government will consult fully on any proposed measures, including civil orders, before they are introduced. Any consultation will set out any gaps in existing legislation that new powers are intended to fill." The Government said its proposals would extend to "tackling all the harms extremists contribute to." NSS spokesperson, Benjamin Jones, commented: "We await the Government's consultation but that will be a meaningless exercise unless it sets out exactly what the new orders are, how they will be activated, and unless the Government actually defines 'extremism'. "Without a definition of 'non-violent extremism' any new measures seriously risk infringing upon freedom of expression." A broad coalition including the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute are opposed to the controversial proposals. The JCHR also commented on Government plans to regulate out of school educational settings providing "intensive tuition, training or instruction to children" – a move welcomed by the NSS. The Government said that currently "the safeguards which protect children in schools and childcare settings are not mandatory in out of school settings, and children are more vulnerable to harm." "Our proposals to regulate them are therefore aimed at ensuring that action can be taken where there are genuine concerns that they are failing to ensure the safety and welfare of children." The Committee warned that there were "grave concerns around Government proposals for a regime of compulsory registration" but the Government argued that it was considering how to ensure its proposals were "targeted" and "proportionate".
	The new UN Secretary General must not allow religion to override human rights Opinion \| Fri, 21st Oct 2016 UN Secretary General designate needs to ignore Catholic pressure to row back on Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights and Gay Rights, writes Keith Porteous Wood. The former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres has been officially appointed as the next UN secretary-general. I for one wish the Secretary General designate every success in his new role. He has clearly done a magnificent job as the UN's high commissioner for refugees and this as well as his political experience as Prime Minister of Portugal could hardly be better experience for his new job. In our increasing fractious world, the position of Secretary General of the United Nations becomes ever more important. We need the best person for the job regardless of their religion or belief. Strikingly, Mr Guterres is described by the normally measured Agence France Press as a "fervent Catholic". It says that while he allowed a referendum in 1996 on liberalization of Portugal's strict anti-abortion laws, his opposition to any change in the law contributed to the referendum's failure. This decision was overturned by another referendum in 2007. Abortion will have featured little if at all in Mr Guterres' activities on refugees, but will be important in the culture war raging at the UN alongside issues associated with contraception and homosexuality. These are also areas where conservative Catholic doctrine comes into conflict with individuals' human rights. Mr Guterres is of course entitled to believe and practise whatever he wishes in his own private life, but he must not impose them in his role as Secretary General. If, as reported, he campaigned against any change in the swingeing anti-abortion laws in Portugal, he may have crossed the line by imposing Catholic doctrine on others in contravention of their human rights. At least one extremist Catholic pressure group appears already to be rubbing their hands with glee at his appointment. C-Fam, an NGO that claims the UN "undermine[s] the family" and is opposed to what it describes as "the UN system's promotion of abortion and LGBT rights" has already issued a statement congratulating Mr Guterres (see p. 26). C-Fam points to Mr Guterres' "pro-life record", hoping "this reflects how he would exercise the important office [with which] he is being entrusted" and encouraging Mr Guterres to "defend the inherent dignity and worth of every human life from conception as well as the place of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society". The Vatican takes the United Nations very seriously and is very powerful there. While the Vatican may be the smallest state in the world it is very active at the UN. At the Human Rights Council, it is the only country I have seen that always has two representatives in the chamber listening to every syllable as though their lives depend on it, handing over the headphones to each other like relay runners do the baton. The liberal international group, Catholics for Choice (CfC), clearly regrets the Vatican/Holy See's status at the UN, the only religion to have a seat there, pointing out that "the Holy See is able to place items on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly, and it enjoys greater access to the plenary sessions of the UN and its main committees, as well as to the Security Council". And the Vatican can - and does - link up with others such as many Muslim majority nations who have similar conservative social agendas. CfC points out that official documents from the last 20 years "are replete with objections" of the Holy See to the "majority consensus" in favour of "the expansion and strengthening of Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights" and "Gay Rights". Similarly, the Centre for Reproductive Rights considers the Vatican obstruct[s] women's sexual and reproductive health and rights, and, like CfC, questions the legitimacy of it being able to do so. The Vatican's opposition to "artificial" contraception - a doctrine supported by very few ordinary Catholics - must lead to greater poverty, not to mention that obstructing the distribution of condoms must contribute to the needless transmission of disease. As CFC observe: "doctors, nurses, and counsellors at Catholic facilities are often forbidden to distribute condoms as part of HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment programs". When acting as Secretary General I would urge Guterres to embrace rather than obstruct the expansion and strengthening of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights and Gay Rights. The world will be watching and hoping fervently that he will not be unduly influenced by regressive religious forces.

Our use of cookies

Newsline 21 October 2016

This week's news from the National Secular Society

Press regulator sides with free speech in ruling on The Sun’s hijab article

Church of England to consider cutting requirement for regular services

Joint Committee on Human Rights challenges the Government on ‘extremism disruption orders’

The new UN Secretary General must not allow religion to override human rights

Read elsewhere

Zineb el Rhazoui, Charlie Hebdo survivor, on why the world needs to ‘destroy Islamic Fascism’

Withdrawing children from collective worship is no easy answer

NSS Speaks Out

Quote of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

TEDxLeicester

Scottish Secular Society - What Does the ‘Post-secular Age’ Mean for Education?

NSS Annual General Meeting - members only event

International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression in the 21st Century

Newsline 21 October 2016

This week's news from the National Secular Society

Read elsewhere

NSS Speaks Out

Quote of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter