Man who burned Koran guilty of religiously aggravated public order offence
Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard last week.
District Judge John McGarva delivered his verdict at the same court on Monday.
Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
District Judge McGarva said Coskun's conduct was 'provocative and taunting'.
Addressing Coskun, the judge said: 'After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.
'That's based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers.
'Your actions in burning the Koran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.
'Your evidence was that your criticism is of Islam in general, not its followers; I don't accept that. You believe Islam is an ideology that encourages its followers to violence, paedophilia and disregard for the rights of non-believers, you don't distinguish between the two.'
The judge added: 'Standing holding a burning Koran and saying loudly: 'Koran is burning' is clearly aimed at provoking others.
'I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location.'
Coskun was fined £240, with a statutory surcharge of £96.
The National Secular Society (NSS) branded the verdict a 'significant blow to freedom of expression' which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes'.
Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard.
In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran.
Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'.
The man approached him allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, the court heard.
The footage appeared to show Coskun back away and use the burning Koran to deflect the attacker, who is alleged to have slashed out at him again.
The man chased Coskun, and the defendant stumbled forward and fell to the ground, dropping the Koran, the footage showed.
Coskun was spat at and kicked by the man, the court heard.
The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.'
Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', prosecutors said.
The defendant, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard.
His legal fees are being paid for by the NSS and the Free Speech Union (FSU), which said they intend to appeal against the verdict 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned'.
An FSU spokesperson said: 'If that means taking it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, we will do so.
'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.'
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: 'The court's acceptance of the prosecution's assertion that Mr Coskun's actions stemmed from hostility towards Muslims raises serious concerns. It is essential to differentiate between prejudice or hatred aimed at individuals and hostility towards the ideologies of Islam or Islamism.
'The conviction of Mr Coskun on the grounds that his actions were 'likely' to cause harassment, alarm, or distress suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws. This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive.
'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
2 hours ago
- New European
Geert Wilders: the fall of an extremist
Wilders has long been at odds with the government that he helped form, after his party, the PVV, won elections in 2023. On several occasions he clashed publicly and spectacularly with Dick Schoof, the non-party-aligned prime minister. And last week he presented the cabinet with a list of demands on asylum that even anti-immigration media outlets thought were unrealistic. The bizarre, 11-month-long sock puppet show that called itself the government of the Netherlands has come to an end, thanks to the puppet master himself. Geert Wilders, the 62-year-old, far-right anti-Islam Dutch leader, has pulled his party out of the ruling coalition, saying he now wants to be prime minister himself. But with elections scheduled for the autumn, he could end up frozen out of power. Schoof, now caretaker prime minister, labelled Wilders's withdrawal from the coalition 'unnecessary and irresponsible' during a debate in parliament on Wednesday. While the outgoing prime minister is unlikely to play a role in the upcoming campaign, his remarks signal a line of attack on Wilders that the other parties have already taken up. This is now the second time that Wilders has brought down a government dominated by the right, the type of government he has always said he wanted for the Netherlands. Former prime minister Mark Rutte called Wilders a 'quitter politician' in 2012, after the far-right frontman withdrew support for the minority government he was leading at the time. In the subsequent elections, the PVV paid a heavy price, and the party was left out in the cold for over a decade. The other parties are bound to highlight Wilders's apparent unreliability to end his dream of leading the country – for good this time. The fractious coalition between the PVV and three more centrist right-wing parties managed to last for almost a year, but the end was never far away. Three of the four parties, the PVV, the farmers' party BBB, and a largely Christian Democrat offshoot, NSC, had no previous government experience, and neither did Schoof. From the start, negotiators were hit by ethics scandals, as were ministerial candidates. Trust and approval ratings among the electorate were low almost from the start. In contrast to some other right-wing European leaders, such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy and lately Bart de Wever in Belgium, the PVV-led coalition was never able to project competence, or stability. Rumours abounded in The Hague about the inefficient and unprofessional ways in which ministers ran their departments. Suggested Reading The right spells trouble for von der Leyen Ferry Biedermann Beside inexperience, the root cause of public disenchantment, and falling PVV polling numbers, might well have been the string of unrealistic promises the party made. In quitting the coalition, Wilders made much of the government's inability to fulfil his election promise of an 'emergency law' to limit asylum seekers. Instead, the government worked on a 'fast-track' law that complied with Dutch and EU rules. On other key issues, such as easing the increasingly onerous nitrogen requirements for Dutch farmers, the coalition saw its approach blocked by the courts that forced it to stick to European targets. On broadly supported socio-economic initiatives, such as free childcare, the coalition ran into logistical and budgetary constraints. In the end, Wilders was unable to make the transition from firebrand opposition leader to responsible statesman. He did, as demanded by his coalition partners, damp down his anti-Islam rhetoric while the PVV was in power. Wilders has been living under police protection and in safe houses since 2004, after receiving death threats following some of his remarks on Islam. Asked during the parliamentary debate on the fall of the coalition whether he would now resume his diatribes against Islam, he said it had not been foremost on his mind. The question is whether Wilders will continue in his more moderate guise, in order to maintain his viability as a future coalition partner. But this seems unlikely and unnecessary. His current coalition partners had no issue doing business with him after the previous campaign, in which he was clear about wanting 'less Islam' in the Netherlands. And voters rewarded him by making the PVV the largest party. Despite the decline in the polls, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to repeat that feat in the upcoming elections. While many might blame him for bringing down the most right-wing government since the end of the Second World War, his base might applaud him for putting a clearly outmatched team out of its misery. Still, other movements in the polls, particularly the revival of the Christian Democrats, could mean he'll be left without coalition partners. While Wilders could triumph once again, his path to power might well be blocked.
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
No kids, excess heat and payment plans. What to know about Hajj 2025
Muslims from around the world are in the Saudi city of Mecca for the Hajj, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. In the coming days, people will immerse themselves in religious rituals and acts of worship that originated more than 1,400 years ago. They also have to contend with excess heat and other earthly factors, like a ban on children under the age of 12 and a crackdown on unauthorized entry. Here's what to know about this year's Hajj: Beating the heat in the Saudi desert Last year's pilgrims struggled through burning sun and suffocating hot weather, with the mercury hitting 47 degrees Celsius (117 degrees Fahrenheit). More than 1,300 people died. This year, Saudi authorities are advising caution in direct sunlight, telling pilgrims to avoid going out during the day and uncovering their heads, except for rituals, unless necessary. An official safety kit emphasizes the importance of light-colored clothing and umbrellas. It also has details on recognizing and treating the symptoms of dehydration and heat exhaustion. But it's tough to avoid the heat and crowds when the Hajj is outdoors. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for many, elevating the personal stakes further, and temperatures in Mecca are already 41 degrees Celsius (about 106 Fahrenheit). Although the desert kingdom spends billions of dollars on crowd control and cooling, the volume of pilgrims and climatic conditions make it difficult to guarantee people's safety. A ban on children under 12 at the Hajj Saudi Arabia has banned children under 12 from this year's Hajj — one of the biggest policy changes in recent years. Riyadh reportedly introduced the ban as a precautionary measure to ensure children's safety during the pilgrimage, which could be a dangerous environment for them because of the huge crowds. Children are exempt from doing the Hajj and are not required to fulfill other Islamic obligations, like prayer and fasting, until they reach puberty. But that doesn't stop some parents from wanting to take their children to experience the Hajj and see the holiest site in Islam, the Kaaba, the black, cube-shaped structure that is the focal point for daily prayers. Father of five Talha Ayub, from the Pakistani city of Lahore, said his kids were staying with their grandparents while he and his wife performed the Hajj in a 'more relaxed way.' 'Even if children were allowed, we probably wouldn't have taken them because the weather is extremely harsh this year,' said Ayub, whose children are aged 1 to 13. 'I have mixed feelings about leaving them behind. I'll miss them.' There's no official age breakdown for pilgrims, but most are between 35 and 64. Layaways and lowering the price tag The price of a Hajj ranges from $4,000 to $20,000, depending on the length of stay, level of comfort, and country of departure. Depreciating currencies, high inflation, and tax hikes in Saudi Arabia also have an impact on how much Muslims end up paying. The countries that typically send the most pilgrims are developing nations. Some have trimmed the price of government-backed Hajj programs to make them more affordable. But this step isn't always enough. Farid Ahmed Majumder, secretary general of the Hajj Agencies Association of Bangladesh, said the country was allowed to send some 127,000 pilgrims this year but failed to meet this quota, mainly because of higher costs. Pakistan has reduced the price of the state-run Hajj program. It has also debuted a flexible payment system. Farmer and small business owner Zaheer Ahmad said he didn't have enough money to pay for his Hajj up-front, 1.2 million rupees or about $4,255. He paid in three installments, applying for the Hajj in December with an advance and finishing his payments in February. 'Otherwise, I might not have been able to go for Hajj at all,' he said. In Saudi Arabia, which has also introduced flexible payments, domestic pilgrims pay 20% within 72 hours of booking, another 40% during Ramadan and the final 40% the following month. Managing wait times and overcrowding Although the Hajj is a once-in-a-lifetime obligation, people don't want to wait a lifetime to fulfill it. But the Hajj has limited capacity, countries have set quotas, and there is only one time each year to do it. Patience really is a virtue and everything needs to align: availability, health, and finances. Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have decades-long waiting lists for the Hajj. Indonesia has 5.4 million people awaiting their turn, with the number increasing each year. While there is nothing to stop people from performing the Hajj more than once, some governments believe this practice deprives others of the opportunity, especially in countries where demand is high. India has a ban on 'repeaters' and excludes applications from anyone who has previously performed the pilgrimage through the national Hajj committee, although there are exceptions from those accompanying certain categories of people like the elderly. With a restricted supply of Hajj spaces, it's inevitable that people will try to find ways to get to the holy city and stay there. In April, to curb unauthorized Hajj pilgrimages and control inbound travel, Saudi Arabia suspended the issue of short-term visas for 14 countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Nigeria, Jordan, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Yemen, and Morocco. People have in the past traveled to Saudi Arabia on short-term visas and entered Mecca without official permission for the Hajj. Authorities said that many of those who died in the heat during last year's Hajj were unregistered and unable to access air-conditioned pilgrim amenities. The Interior Ministry warned in May that a fine of up to 20,000 riyals, or about $5,330, would be imposed on anyone attempting to enter Mecca during the Hajj without the correct visa. ___ Associated Press writers Sheikh Saaliq in New Delhi, Julhas Alam in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Munir Ahmed in Islamabad contributed to this report. ___ Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Daily Mail
19 hours ago
- Daily Mail
A cynical drive is under way to shut down any criticism of Islam - and that will only cause further division: DR TAJ HARGEY
Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of British civilisation. It is the noble idea that lay at the heart of the Magna Carta, pioneered the development of parliamentary democracy and inspired the defeat of Nazi tyranny. But I fear this essential liberty is under grave threat from an ugly alliance of Muslim extremists and supine British officials who are conspiring – in the name of multicultural sensitivity – to give Islam a special status in our society. Dressed up as a form of trendy tolerance, this sinister strategy is already corroding public discourse and breeding a new form of 'two-tier justice'. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the disturbing case of Hamit Coskun, a Kurdish-Armenian protester who was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence on Monday after he burnt a copy of the Koran outside Turkey's consulate in London. Attacked by a knifeman at the time (who, farcically, will not face trial until 2027), the 50-year-old has now been punished by the British state and fined almost £350. As a progressive imam and Islamic theologian, I found Coksun's actions distasteful, offensive and utterly against the spirit of Britain where respect for people's beliefs and faiths is a central feature of our culture. And yet I am deeply troubled by the decision of the authorities to treat his conduct as a criminal offence. No one has been put in physical danger. The damage to property is slight. Nor is the legislation under which he has been charged being deployed as its makers intended. The Public Order Act is meant to deal with dangerous and abusive behaviour, not hurt feelings or religious sensibilities. This decision does not show British law operating at its majestic, impartial best. On the contrary, the depressing episode exposes the cynical drive to shut down any criticism of Islam. The conviction of Coskun is not an isolated case. It is part of a concerted push to erect a judicial forcefield around Islam – that will only sow further division. Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration should consider the case of the schoolteacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, who showed his pupils a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in 2021. Four years on and the teacher is living in hiding, fearing for his life after being targeted by Islamists. The drawing was presented during a classroom discussion about the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, when terrorists targeted the French satirical magazine after it published drawings of the prophet. 'Je Suis Charlie,' Western leaders cried at the time as they expressed solidarity with the 12 victims of this horrific atrocity. But those were just empty words. In Britain, Europe and most of the West the concern of political elites and policymakers was to avoid offending Islam rather than defending our cherished democratic principles. That is why the Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was absolutely right to warn that, under Sir Keir Starmer's government, we could be seeing a specific blasphemy law to protect Islam creeping in by the back door. In 2008, the traditional British blasphemy laws were finally abolished. It is extraordinary that now, in the face of Muslim fundamentalists and fanatics, those laws could be resurrected to prop up a creed that barely existed in Britain before the mid-20th century. Islam is no more part of Britain's historic identity than Christianity is part of Morocco's or Pakistan's. Yet now the faith is being given a uniquely privileged position above all other religions in this country. That is a reflection not of some celestial truth but fear – given the demands and grievances of fundamentalist Muslims often come laced with the menace of violence. Any quasi-blasphemy law is little more than a form of appeasement by a cowardly political establishment that always offers the path of least resistance to hardliners. Little wonder that the Tories' justice spokesman Robert Jenrick warned this week that the policy will create a two-tier legal system – the very opposite of equality that is meant to be Labour's lodestar. This is not the road to peace. This will lead to more oppression, violence and extremism – such as we saw with the Charlie Hebdo killings and the savage attack on the great writer Salman Rushdie in 2022. The signs of surrender are all too clear. One glaring example of this institutional feebleness is the plan to introduce a new wide-ranging definition of Islamophobia under the 2010 Equality Act which – as its architect Harriet Harman declared – created 'a new social order in Britain'. Part of that new order could be the criminalisation of any criticism of Islam – a move that our forefathers would have found despicable and incomprehensible. Some supporters of this crackdown on free speech want to widen the definition of racially aggravated crimes to include any attacks on Islam or its believers. But that just illustrates the intellectual weakness of the fundamentalists' position. Islam is not a race, it is a religion, and people from all sorts of ethnic minorities are adherents. But the greater intellectual flaw is the pretence that blasphemy rules are sanctioned by the Koran. As a Muslim scholar, I can say categorically that this is a complete fabrication. There is nothing scriptural about the concept of blasphemy. In truth, the Koran advocates freedom of religion and mutual coexistence by welcoming other beliefs and viewpoints. 'To you, is your religion, and to me, mine,' says one striking verse in Islam's book. The tragedy of contemporary Islam, especially in the West, is that fundamentalists have been allowed to take charge. They have dictated the agenda, resulting in a triumph for radicalism. I believe orthodox Muslims' obsession with blasphemy stems not from Islam's transcendent text but from three manufactured additions to Islamic theology. I call them the 'Toxic Trio' because their influence has been so malign. First, there is the 'hadith', the reported sayings of Prophet Mohammed compiled centuries after his death. Second, is the 'sharia', a patriarchal concoction of medieval codes that justify authoritarianism and treat women as second-class citizens. Third, there are the 'fatwas', the risible opinions of self-important and politically motivated clerics. Their aim is not to promote spiritual enlightenment but to enhance the rulers' stranglehold on power. While the Toxic Trio is routinely used to justify blasphemy laws in Islam, it has no place in a liberal democracy like Britain. It is wrong on so many levels. By giving a unique status or protected standing to Islam, it contravenes the British imperative to fairness and justice. This is bound to cause resentment since other believers will not feel that they have the same protection. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that the state would have been as tough with someone who burnt a copy of the Bible outside the Italian Embassy in London. I am not arguing that we should widen a blasphemy law to cover every faith. Freedom of speech has already been undermined too much in modern Britain, as shown by the spread of cancel culture and the vast diversity industry, which only encourages people to feel perpetual offence. We should be moving in the opposite direction – towards a greater embrace of liberty, not by constricting hard-fought historic rights for free speech. That is the truly British way.
