Today, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) voted 57 to 24 in favour of repealing blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland. Alliance MLA Connie Egan tabled the amendment to the Justice Bill, which is now set to repeal the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Humanists has long campaigned for the repeal of Northern Ireland’s blasphemy laws and welcomes today’s vote as a significant signal for freedom of expression and the rights of the non-religious and religious minorities.

Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator commented:

‘This is an exciting and long-awaited victory for freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief in Northern Ireland. We are incredibly grateful to Connie Egan MLA for bringing this important amendment.

‘We have campaigned for the repeal of these archaic blasphemy laws for years, and today’s vote not only set us en route to be in line with the rest of the UK and Ireland, but sends a powerful signal to the rest of the world that no-one should face criminal sanctions for saying what they believe, or for challenging religious ideas.’

What are blasphemy laws and why are they bad?

Blasphemy laws criminalise the subjective notion of ‘insulting’ religious sentiments. This violates not only the right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) itself. FoRB doesn’t only protect those who hold religious beliefs. It protects humanists and atheists, including those who have left a religion, to hold and express their beliefs too.

This means that non-religious people and people from religious minorities risk contravening blasphemy laws simply for saying what they believe. The existence of blasphemy laws, even when unenforced, can embolden extremists and legitimise blasphemy-related harassment. Silencing so-called ‘blasphemy’ stifles the open debate that is necessary for a plural, tolerant society to flourish. Their existence in liberal democracies also signals to repressive states that censorship of and punishment for so-called religious insult are acceptable.

Why is the repeal of blasphemy laws from Northern Ireland so important?

Even so-called ‘dead letter laws’ can be reactivated at any time. In Denmark in 2017, blasphemy laws were invoked after 46 years of being unused. In the same year, Humanists UK patron Stephen Fry was investigated for potentially breaking the Republic of Ireland’s blasphemy law, which had not been used since it was passed in 2009.

Mubarak Bala, former President of the Nigerian Humanist Association, who was imprisoned for four-and-a-half years out of a 24-year jail sentence for blasphemy in Nigeria, was told that ‘even the British have blasphemy laws’ as he was arrested. This demonstrates that, even if a law has not recently been used to prosecute an individual, its very existence has negative consequences for human rights around the world.

In another example, when Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), tried (and failed) to create an international standard that prohibited ‘defamation of religion’, it took its definition directly from Ireland’s laws on blasphemous libel, despite it being unused at that time. In 2020, blasphemy ceased to be a criminal offence in the Republic of Ireland after the public voted overwhelmingly for blasphemy to be removed from the Irish Constitution. It can therefore no longer be referenced as an excuse.

Northern Ireland Humanists says it’s time for Northern Ireland to follow suit. Blasphemy laws were repealed in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2024, making Northern Ireland the last part of the UK to still have blasphemy laws.

Northern Ireland Humanists and the road to repeal

In 2019, Northern Ireland Humanists launched its campaign to repeal Northern Ireland’s blasphemy laws, calling on members to ask their MLAs to support the repeal. After almost 1,000 emails were sent, all the major political parties in Northern Ireland came out in favour of supporting repeal, with only the DUP opposed.

Northern Ireland Humanists worked with Justice Minister Naomi Long to secure the repeal of Northern Ireland’s blasphemy laws. In 2021, the Department of Justice had hoped to bring about repeal through a forthcoming Bill. However, for the Bill to go ahead with enough time to be considered by the Assembly, the focus had to be narrowed to reform laws relating to sexual offences and protections for trafficking victims only. This meant that blasphemy was no longer within the scope of the Bill. Movement on the repeal slowed while the Northern Ireland Assembly was on a two-year hiatus until 2024.

Since the Assembly’s return, Northern Ireland Humanists has continued to meet with MLAs and has written to the Committee for Justice urging it to take steps towards securing the repeal of blasphemy laws and to support any opportunities that should arise. It welcomed Connie Egan’s amendment when it was tabled earlier this year, and has been briefing MLAs since.

What happens next?

Today’s vote took place during the Justice Bill’s Consideration Stage. This is the point where MLAs debate the Bill in detail and vote on proposed changes, known as amendments. By voting for Connie Egan MLA’s amendment, MLAs have agreed to add the repeal of blasphemy laws to the Bill. This is a major step forward, but the repeal is not yet law. The Justice Bill must still pass its Further Consideration Stage, where MLAs can make more changes, and then its Final Stage, where MLAs vote on the Bill as a whole. If the Bill passes, it will go through final legal checks before receiving Royal Assent and becoming an Act. Northern Ireland Humanists will continue to work with MLAs to make sure this important repeal stays in the Bill and becomes law.

Humanists UK is dismayed at the Conservative Party’s challenge to the Equality Act with a call to scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Humanists UK believes the Equality Act is a vital piece of legislation that supports the fair and equal society that humanists strive to achieve. This includes legal protections against discrimination on the grounds of your religion and belief, which cuts across almost all the campaigning work Humanists UK does.

The Equality Act brings together decades of anti-discrimination law by providing protection against unfair treatment on the basis of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. The Act protects workers from harassment, victimisation, or unfair dismissal on grounds of these protected characteristics. For example, it maintains the rights of disabled people who require reasonable adjustment to carry out their jobs, and protects service users from being denied access or treated unfairly. The PSED requires organisations that serve a ‘public function’ have a duty to uphold equality law. This applies to public authorities such as government departments, the NHS, the police, and local authorities.

This announcement by Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch is the latest in a worrying trend of attempts to undermine legislation that promotes a plural, tolerant, and inclusive society. Last year, she also committed to withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the Conservative Party were to win the next general election. Earlier this year, Reform UK announced its intention to repeal the Equality Act 2010 entirely, and withdraw from the ECHR as well as several international human rights agreements if it wins the next election. Meanwhile, Labour has called into question how Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) are interpreted in relation to asylum cases. Taken together, these developments risk weakening both equality and human rights protections, undermining the legal safeguards that help individuals challenge discrimination and hold public bodies to account.

Humanists UK Policy and Campaigns Manager Laura Newlyn said:

‘The legal safeguards that protect people from discrimination and uphold fundamental rights are hard-won victories, and hallmarks of a fair and democratic society. The Public Sector Equality Duty is a vital component of equality law that holds public authorities accountable for their decisions. 

‘Withdrawing from a duty to uphold equality does not protect anyone. Where protections fail, robust training and comprehensive, clear guidance are needed to facilitate effective implementation. We should be wary of attempts to weaken these protections or proposals to make it harder to hold those in power accountable, as doing so risks undermining the progress we’ve made towards the equal and inclusive society we would want to be a part of.’

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the Education Minister’s refusal to approve proposals for Rathmore Primary School and Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College to transform to integrated status. Responding to the judgment, Northern Ireland Humanists said the ruling highlighted significant flaws in the integrated education system.

The case concerned proposals by both schools to become integrated, following parental ballots in which large majorities supported transformation. At Rathmore Primary School, 82.3% of voting parents backed the proposal, while at Bangor Academy, 79.4% voted in favour. Both proposals were supported by the Education Authority, and departmental officials had recommended approval.

Despite this, the Minister refused both applications in January 2025, concluding that the schools did not meet, and were unlikely to meet, the statutory requirement to provide ‘reasonable numbers’ of both Protestant and Catholic pupils. Although parents challenged this decision in court, the Minister’s decision was supported by the judge. This was then taken to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.

The Court concluded that the Minister’s decisions were rational and lawful, and that the grounds of challenge did not disclose an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success. It noted that while the Department has a duty to ‘encourage, facilitate and support’ integrated education, the law also prevents approval of a transformation proposal unless the Department is satisfied that the school would be likely to provide integrated education as legally defined.

Recently the Department of Education released a report on integrated education which concluded that the demand for integrated education was ‘present but uneven’. In response, Northern Ireland Humanists said the report risked understating the need for reform by placing too much weight on a narrow measure of parental demand.

Commenting on the ruling, Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator said

This judgment underlines a real problem in the law on integrated education. Parents at both schools voted overwhelmingly for change, yet the legal framework allowed those proposals to be blocked. The fact that schools can win overwhelming support from parents to become integrated and still face such barriers shows how badly reform is needed.

The Department should now work constructively with these school communities to ensure that any future proposals have the strongest possible chance of success. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education must update their statement of principles on the 40/40/20 split.But the Assembly must also consider whether the law is doing enough to support parents who want their children educated together.

MPs from across the political divide spoke out about the coordinated filibuster of the Assisted Dying Bill by a minority of peers in the House of Lords. During a Westminster Hall debate triggered by a public petition held yesterday, MPs lamented that the Bill fell without a single vote, directly contravening the clear will of the Commons, and undermining public trust in Parliament. Humanists UK joins MPs in calling out the unjust filibuster and calls on MPs to bring back the Bill.

The Westminster Hall debate was triggered when a petition ‘to ensure Bills backed by MPs & public can complete all stages in Parliament’ received over 114,000 signatures. The petition was tabled by Sophie Blake, a mother living with Stage 4 Breast Cancer in memory of Nathaniel Dye MBE who died early this year.

The petition states:

We believe the decision of MPs must be respected, especially on matters of social change, and that unelected Lords have a responsibility to scrutinise bills, not block them. With over 1,000 amendments tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, most by just a handful of Lords, we are concerned that it will run out of time. MPs have voted for it, and a poll has found over 70% of the public backs it. While the Government is neutral, it must uphold democracy. We believe it must act so the Bill can progress.

The debate

Leading the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee, Lewis Atkinson, Labour MP for Sunderland Central, and All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) member paid tribute to Nathaniel Dye and Sophie Blake and outlined that the he thought he petition posed:

‘what I would suggest is an existential question for us here: does our constitutional settlement allow changes that have been backed by the public and their representatives to pass into law? I desperately want the answer to that question to be yes. That is not because I want a specific piece of legislation to be passed; it is because if, as a country, we cannot resolve different views through Parliament—developing legislative proposals and scrutinising them, but ultimately reaching a decision on them—we are in a very troubling place.’

Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale and Chair of the APPHG, spoke about how the scrutiny process for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill went ‘went above and beyond the process for any Government Bill’. She said:

‘The debate today […] is about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. It is about the reasons why we have decided that those with no democratic mandate should not be able to block the will of the elected Chamber. It is about trust in Parliament—trust that we will act with dignity and respect for the proper way of doing things, and know our constitutional places and the limits placed on our power, which are there for a very good reason. It is about the ability of the Lords to behave in a way that allows us to have flexibility in our constitutional settlement, to move with the times and not to be bound by a single, rigid written document. I see great value in having flexibility in our constitutional mechanisms. However, that relies on individuals and groups of individuals operating with honour—something that, unfortunately, this episode did not demonstrate.’

Siân Berry, Green MP fro Brighton Pavilion, and APPHG member said:

‘On the principle—on this and any other issue where a similar process takes place and the House of Commons has the courage to come to a decision—I agree that it is not for the House of Lords to stop that using these kinds of methods.’

Kit Malthouse, Conservative MP for North West Hampshire and APPHG member opened his intervention by speaking how up until the debate around assisted dying, he believed the House of Lords was an ‘eccentric but essential part of our democracy’. He said:

‘We know that opponents were going around the House of Lords encouraging peers to table amendments to spread the air of suspicion. It was not just the odd one: there was the mandatory appearance in court and the increase in the number of doctors to five, alongside the pregnancy test and the travel ban. There were endless amendments that were specious and often openly cruel.

‘The second thing that really shocked me about the process was the disconnection of Members of the House of Lords from the wider population, and indeed from the number of our fellow citizens who find themselves in extremis and seeking relief from their pain. It was clear from what I am afraid was the casual cruelty in many of the speeches and amendments that those Members had just not sat down and talked with people, or spent time to understand the awful circumstances that so many of our citizens find themselves in.’

About the filibuster of the Assisted Dying Bill

The Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which was passed by MPs last summer, fell in the House of Lords after nearly 1,300 changes to the Bill were proposed, a record for any parliamentary Bill. Amendments have included a pregnancy test for all applicants, including men, a one-year holiday ban for applicants, and an unworkable requirement for half a dozen GP visits.

We have identified several instances of peers being explicitly clear that they were trying to block the Bill by means other than it being voted down.

The Bill fell when it didn’t complete all its parliamentary stages by the end of the session.

The Bill could be brought back by an MP who was successful in the Private Members’ Bill ballot. If an identical Bill is brought back, it will still have to complete all its parliamentary stages, including the House of Lords again, but the Lords would not be able to block the Bill.

Karen Wright, Director of Human Rights and Advocacy at Humanists UK, said:

‘This debate highlighted the primacy of the Commons and the compassion that terminally ill people deserve. After hundreds of hours of intense scrutiny, thousands of emails, letters, and meetings with constituents, and heartfelt debates that were the Commons at its best, for the Bill to be talked out by a handful of unelected peers is a travesty. We hope MPs correct that injustice.

‘Terminally ill people who are suffering today face impossible and horrendous options: fly to Switzerland, resort to drastic and dangerous suicides, or suffer in pain. No compassionate society should accept those options.’

From A J Ayer and Bertrand Russell leading the charge for decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1950s, to the founding of the Gay Humanist Group in 1979, humanists have been marching, campaigning, and fighting for LGBT+ rights for well over a century.

To celebrate Pride Month, we’re spotlighting five iconic LGBT+ humanists.

Virginia Woolf (1882-1941)

‘For here again, we come to a dilemma. Different though the sexes are, they intermix. In every human being a vacillation from one sex to the other takes place.’

(Orlando, Virginia Woolf)

Virginia Woolf’s modernism can be understood as fundamentally a humanist project, one deeply shaped by her challenge to conventional ideas about gender, sexuality, and personal freedom. She rejected the static, patriarchal, and divinely ordained models of Edwardian society, choosing instead to explore the complexity of human consciousness and desire.

In 1912, aged 30, Virginia Stephen married Leonard Woolf, and the pair continued to cultivate the tight-knit circle known as the Bloomsbury Group. Bloomsbury was an LGBT-inclusive network of friends and lovers that celebrated sexual equality and freedom, feeling that every person had the right to live and love in the way they chose. In 1922, she met and began a relationship with the writer Vita Sackville-West, an intimate and romantic partnership that inspired what is perhaps the most magnificent love letter in English literature: Orlando (1928). Orlando shifts effortlessly across centuries and genders, a striking creative destabilisation of the rigid sexual categories of the 1920s.

James Baldwin (1924–1987)

‘Love him and let him love you. Do you think anything else under heaven really matters?’

(Giovanni’s Room, James Baldwin)

For James Baldwin, the struggle against racism could never be separated from the struggle against oppression based on sexuality. Through both his writing and activism, he challenged America to confront prejudice in all its forms, helping to raise public awareness of the connections between racial and sexual injustice.

This commitment was most boldly expressed in Giovanni’s Room (1956), Baldwin’s groundbreaking novel about love between two men in post-war Paris. The book was a risky and courageous departure from what his publisher had expected after the success of Go Tell It on the Mountain. American publishing house Knopf initially rejected the manuscript, warning that its supposed ‘perversion’ would harm Baldwin’s career. Undeterred, Baldwin pressed ahead, publishing a novel that explored love, sexuality, self-knowledge, and acceptance with extraordinary honesty and humanity.

Set among the queer bohemian circles of 1950s Paris, Giovanni’s Room portrays characters searching for meaning, belonging, and personal freedom across boundaries of language, culture, and class. Through its deeply compassionate depiction of love, heartbreak, and suffering, the novel reflects Baldwin’s profoundly humanist concern with individual autonomy and the universal quest to understand oneself. Today, it is recognised not only as one of Baldwin’s greatest achievements but also as a foundational text of LGBT+ literature, helping to pave the way for the gay civil rights movement that followed.

E M Forster (1879–1970)

‘Only connect’

(Howards End, E M Forster)

The great novelist E M Forster spent his life navigating the boundary between public conformity and private truth. For Forster, a Vice President of Humanists UK in the 1950s, the value of our lives lay in our relationships with others and the need for tolerance, sympathy, and love. It is in Howards End that we find his immortal phrase: ‘Only connect’.

Forster’s humanist conviction that love and intimacy are positive goods – wholly independent of religious validation – culminated in his novel Maurice. Written in 1913 but intentionally withheld from publication until after his death in 1970, Maurice was a revolutionary act: a story of homosexual love that did not end in suicide, madness, or ruin, but in joyful, enduring partnership. 

During the First World War, Forster joined the Red Cross, working in Alexandria as a searcher tracing missing soldiers when he met and began a relationship with Muhammad al-Adl. In 1930, after Muhammad’s death from tuberculosis, he met Bob Buckingham, a policeman, with whom he maintained a relationship until his death. In 1932, he wrote: ‘I have been happy, and would like to remind others that their turns can come too. It is the only message worth giving’. It was during this decade that Forster became a visible presence in campaigns for civic freedom and social reform.

Alan Turing (1912–1954)

‘I’m afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future:

‘Turing believes machines think

‘Turing lies with men

‘Therefore machines do not think.’

(Letter Turing wrote in 1952 to his friend and fellow mathematician, Norman Routledge)

Alan Turing was a visionary thinker and one of the greatest humanists, mathematicians, and codebreakers of all time. He was also a private man who, though never seeking to conceal his sexuality, was subjected to the cruelty of state bigotry when prosecuted for gross indecency in 1952. Forced to choose between prison and chemical castration, he accepted the latter – a barbaric act by the state. Yet through it all, he had simply sought the freedom to live unjudged, and to pursue the work which mattered to him: to play his part in the innovations of the ‘human community’. As Andrew Hodges wrote in the closing pages of his biography, ‘with so few messages from the unseen mind to work on, his inner code remains unbroken’, but his legacy – for humanists, for scientists, and for the LGBT+ community – remains undeniable.

Today, Turing is a celebrated icon of the queer community. His work cracking the Enigma code and laying the foundation for computer science is recognised globally, and he currently features on the Bank of England £50 note.

Maureen Duffy (1933–2026)

‘I’m just taking up my whole personality and walking quietly out into the world with it. We’ll see what happens.’

In the modern era of activism, we should honour the monumental legacy of the late poet, novelist, and playwright Maureen Duffy. As one of the first public figures to fight for lesbian visibility in this country, Maureen’s courage and openness about her sexuality transformed gay and lesbian acceptance in the UK, breaking down barriers and prejudice, and giving other women like her the confidence to do the same. In 1962 she published her first novel, That’s How It Was, a semi-autobiographical account of growing up in post-World War II England.

Her second novel, The Microcosm (1966), set in the famous lesbian Gateways club in London, was a feminist work that explored the lives of a group of women in 1960s London. It was considered the first ‘openly’ lesbian novel in English, and was banned in Ireland, the Vatican, and South Africa. Expressing the need for visibility for the LGBT+ community in The Microcosm, Maureen said:

‘We’re part of society, part of the world whether we or society like it or not, and we have to learn to live in the world and the world has to live with us.’

The individual triumphs and tragedies of these historical icons have been fundamental to the organised humanist campaigns that have followed. 

For nearly half a century, LGBT+ Humanists has blazed a trail arguing for LGBT liberation and has played a key role in achieving milestones such as the decriminalisation of gay sex, ending Section 28, and the equalisation of the age of consent. 

Humanists UK celebrants were conducting same-sex humanist weddings decades before the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Humanists UK was later a prominent campaigner for legal same-sex marriages in Britain, working closely with the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group on the passing of the Same Sex Marriage Act 2013.

The Gay Humanist Group also campaigned for legal same-sex marriages since its inception in the late 1970s. In 2001, the group campaigned heavily for gay couples to take part in the London Partnership Register – the policy which later inspired the Civil Partnerships Act and eventually the Same Sex Marriage Act.

Today, that struggle continues. Whether campaigning for a full ban on the abusive practice of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ or resisting the rise of resurgent religious nationalisms that target LGBT people globally, the template remains the same.

Humanists UK has called on Nottinghamshire County Council to stop funding its discretionary faith-based home-to-school transport, arguing that the current policy is unfair and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Nottinghamshire County Council is currently reviewing its ‘discretionary faith-based home to school transport offer’, arguing that the council is ‘currently facing significant financial pressures across all services’. The council estimates that continuing the current arrangements would cost between £7.25 and £7.5 million over six years, compared with between £2.25 and £2.5 million if discretionary faith-based transport is withdrawn from September 2027.

The current scheme supports families who choose faith schools on religious grounds, but offers no equivalent support to families who choose schools with no religious character. In its consultation response, Humanists UK said the scheme is unfair and discriminatory in effect. It strongly argued for the withdrawal of the scheme from 2027, and against delaying withdrawal until 2031 or retaining the scheme with higher parental contributions.

Commenting on the proposal, Humanists UK’s Policy and Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:

‘Nottinghamshire County Council’s current policy privileges families who choose to send their children to faith schools, while offering no equivalent support to families who do not. That is deeply unfair, especially when the council is under significant financial pressure.

‘Public money should support children and families according to need, not subsidise religious preference in school choice. The fairest approach is to withdraw the faith-based element from September 2027 while preserving all statutory home-to-school transport protections.’

The consultation is open until 12 June. 

New data from the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey shows that at least one in three young adults in Northern Ireland has no religion. This underlines the growing diversity of belief among younger people.

Northern Ireland Humanists said the figures show that public policy and civic life are out of step with an increasingly non-religious society, and must reflect the changing beliefs and values of modern Northern Ireland, especially among younger people.

The 2025 survey found that 33% of 18–24-year-olds and 40% of 25–34-year-olds say they belong to no religion. Across the population as a whole, 27% say they have no religion, compared with 34% Catholic and 39% Protestant or other Christian.

Commenting on the data, Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator said:

‘The data from the Life and Times survey shows just how much Northern Ireland is changing. Yet despite the fact that Northern Ireland’s young people are increasingly non-religious, too many of our institutions still act as though everyone fits neatly into one of two Christian traditions. That simply does not reflect the reality of Northern Ireland today.

‘Schools, public services, ceremonies, and civic life must recognise the full diversity of beliefs held by people here. That means treating non-religious people equally, ending outdated religious privilege, and building a society based on shared civic values rather than inherited green or orange labels.’

Humanists UK has warned the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights that accusations of ‘blasphemy’ must not be used to suppress peaceful protest.

In its response to the Committee’s inquiry into the role of human rights in security, safety and protest, Humanists UK called for blasphemy-specific guidance for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales to protect subjectively offensive but lawful expression from being criminalised, while threats, harassment, and incitement to violence are properly investigated and sanctioned. Humanists UK said this concern sits within a broader erosion of protest rights in recent years.

Case studies

In its evidence, Humanists UK cited a series of recent blasphemy-related incidents that it said demonstrated how public authorities have too often treated alleged religious offence as a crime, while failing to protect those targeted by intimidation, threats and even violence. Examples included the case of Hamit Coskun, who was prosecuted after burning a Quran outside the Turkish Embassy in protest against the Turkish government, and had his conviction overturned on appeal and upheld by the High Court. Coskun was attacked with a knife during his protest and was taken to hospital before being arrested. Despite pleading guilty to assault, his attacker avoided a prison sentence.

Humanists also UK drew attention to the Batley Grammar School teacher who was suspended and forced into hiding after receiving death threats for using an image of the Prophet Mohammed in a Religious Education lesson on freedom of expression. Other examples cited by Humanists UK included:

• Cineworld’s cancellation of screenings of The Lady of Heaven – a film from a Shia Muslim perspective – amid protests that it was ‘blasphemous’ because management was concerned about the safety of their staff and customers. 
• The suspension of four pupils at Kettlethorpe High School for minor damage to a Quran. This incident was initially recorded as a ‘non-crime hate incident’, while one of their parents made a public apology for blasphemy at a local mosque alongside police, and said they did not wish to press charges for the death threats the child had received. 

Humanists UK pointed to these cases as examples of authorities appeasing protesters who use intimidation to censor others rather than defending victims of harassment.

Humanists UK said the law struck the right balance in relation to Safe Access Zones around abortion clinics. It supports the restriction on protests within 150 metres of premises providing abortion services, arguing that this is a lawful, necessary, and proportionate limitation on protest rights because it protects women and staff from harassment, intimidation, and unwanted interference when accessing healthcare. The response stressed that such measures do not ban anti-abortion protests altogether, but make sure  that women are not made a captive audience at the point of accessing medical services.

A Humanists UK spokesperson said:

‘Freedom of expression includes the right to criticise, challenge, and even ridicule religion and belief. But too often, public authorities have treated alleged blasphemy as the problem, while failing to protect those facing threats and intimidation for exercising their rights. The police and CPS need clear guidance so that lawful expression is protected, while harassment, incitement and violence are dealt with firmly.’

Northern Ireland Humanists has expressed deep disappointment after an amendment to remove the legal defence of ‘reasonable punishment’ of children was excluded from the Consideration Stage of Northern Ireland’s Justice Bill.

The amendment, tabled by Alliance MLA Michelle Guy, would have given children the same legal protection from physical assault as adults by removing the criminal defence of ‘reasonable punishment’ from Northern Ireland law. The Equal Protection Working Group, a coalition of children’s rights organisations, health professional bodies, charities, and community and voluntary sector groups, said it was unclear why the amendment was not selected for debate and described the decision as a ‘major missed opportunity’.

Northern Ireland Humanists had previously joined over 250 organisations and professionals calling on Stormont to support the amendment. It said reform would bring Northern Ireland into line with Scotland, Wales, Jersey, the Republic of Ireland, and around 70 countries worldwide, where children already have equal protection under assault laws.

Commenting on the decision, Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator said:

‘We are deeply disappointed that this amendment has been excluded from debate. The current law sends the wrong message by allowing adults to justify physical punishment in circumstances where the victim is a child.

‘Children and young people deserve the same basic protection from violence as everyone else. Northern Ireland is now falling even further behind other parts of these islands, where equal protection has already been achieved. Children’s rights, dignity, and wellbeing should not be treated as optional or secondary.

‘This setback must not be the end of the matter. The Executive and Assembly should urgently find another route to remove the ‘reasonable punishment’ defence and give children equal protection under the law.’

Humanists UK is deeply saddened to learn of the death of the pioneering writer, activist, and first President of LGBT+ Humanists, Maureen Duffy, aged 92.

Born in 1933, in Worthing, Duffy attended King’s College London, where she earned a degree in English, graduating in 1956. She then worked as a teacher, freelance journalist, and copywriter before devoting herself to writing full-time in the 1960s.

As one of the first people to fight for lesbian visibility in this country, Maureen’s courage and openness about her sexuality transformed gay and lesbian acceptance in the UK, breaking down barriers and prejudice, and giving confidence to other women like her to do the same. In 1962 she published her first novel, That’s How It Was, a semi-autobiographical account of growing up in post-World War II England. Her second novel, The Microcosm (1966), set in the famous lesbian Gateways club in London, was a feminist work that explored the lives of a group of women in 1960s London. It was considered the first ‘openly’ lesbian novel in English, and was banned in Ireland, the Vatican, and South Africa for showing black and white characters socialising together.Expressing the need for visibility for the LGBT+ community in The Microcosm, Maureen said:

‘We’re part of society, part of the world whether we or society like it or not, and we have to learn to live in the world and the world has to live with us.’

In 1967 she spoke about the bravery it takes to come out in a televised interview, notably before the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was enacted – meaning even the partial decriminalisation of homosexual acts was yet to come.

The following year, her poetry collection Lyrics for the Dog Hour was published. It included a humanist mass, Missa Hermana, which was later set to music by Dolly Collins, receiving its world premiere at Conway Hall in 2023.

In 1977 she published The Ballad of the Blasphemy Trial, a broadside against the trial of the Gay News newspaper for blasphemous libel, a trial which sparked the formation of the Gay Humanist Group (now LGBT+ Humanists) in 1979. As its first President, Maureen spoke of the ‘ethics of compassion’ underpinning the group, which she defined in a 1980 address as ‘a fluid morality, based on a perception of fellowness, fellow feeling, fellow suffering.’ ‘It is immensely appealing to a writer,’ she said, ‘because it requires a continuing act of the imagination in order to identify with others and it also needs the continuing exercise of the reason if there is to be some bony structure to it, for it not to become mere sloppiness.’

To conclude the talk, Duffy quoted from The Microcosm, using the character of Matt to express a gentle but resolute promise to be part of the world, while remaining true to herself:

‘I’m just taking up my whole personality and walking quietly out into the world with it. We’ll see what happens.’

Beyond her trailblazing efforts for LGBT+ rights, Maureen was also a dedicated champion of authors’ rights, co-founding the Writers’ Action Group to secure the Public Lending Right, and helping to establish the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS). She was an early campaigner for animal rights and was involved in early CND marches.

In 2001, she joined fellow Humanists UK patrons in signing a public letter urging the government to reconsider its expansion of faith schools.

Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson commented:

‘Maureen was a brilliant writer and an irreplaceable pioneer of our movement. Her fierce intelligence, sharp wit, and unshakeable commitment to an ethics of compassion transformed British culture and brought vital visibility to non-religious LGBT+ people at a time when it was hardest to do so. She embodied the very best of humanist values – using reason, creativity, and empathy to build a fairer world. Everyone should know her name.’