Judge set to pass verdict after trial of man who burned Koran
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, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard last week.
Coskun denies 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 the Public Order Act 1986.
He also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', contrary to section five of the Public Order Act 1986.
The charges are alternative to each other, meaning if hostility towards religion is not proven, Coskun could still be found guilty of the simple offence of disorderly behaviour.
His lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, argued last week that the prosecution is effectively trying to revive blasphemy laws, which were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021.
Blasphemy remains an offence in Northern Ireland but is rarely enforced.
Prosecutor Philip McGhee said the case is about disorderly conduct, not the act of burning the Koran itself, adding that the prosecution of Coskun does not represent a restriction on criticising religion.
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 Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS).
District Judge John McGarva will pass verdict at the same court on Monday.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, said before the trial: 'A successful prosecution in this case could represent the effective criminalisation of damaging a Koran in public, edging us dangerously close to a prohibition on blasphemy.
'The case also highlights the alarming use of public order laws to curtail our collective right to protest and free speech based on the subjective reactions of others.
'Establishing a right not to be offended threatens the very foundation of free expression.'
A spokesperson for Humanists UK previously said that a successful prosecution would 'effectively resurrect the crime of blasphemy in England and Wales – 17 years after its abolition'.
They added: 'This reintroduction of blasphemy by the back door would have profound consequences, not only for free expression in the UK but for the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of so-called 'apostates' in the UK and their right to freedom of thought and conscience.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Protect freedom to criticise Islam in law, MPs demand
The freedom to criticise Islam must be protected, Tory MPs have demanded amid a row over a man's conviction for burning a Koran. Following a trial at Westminster magistrates' court, Hamit Coskun, 50, was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Coskun set fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive and expand long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Nick Timothy, a Conservative MP, is proposing to put a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill before the Commons next Tuesday. The proposed Bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend section 29J of the Public Order Act, which protects the criticism of religions and religious beliefs so that it covers section 4A and section 5 of the Public Order Act, under which Coskun was charged. Mr Timothy argued that those parts of the Act are currently being used to prosecute legitimate criticism and protest regarding Islam. He said that while England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008, they were now effectively being revived through the use of the Public Order Act. The Bill, if enacted, would 'protect free speech and ensure no religion is above the law'. Section 29J of the Public Order Act provides protection to the right to criticise or express 'antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents'. Mr Timothy told The Telegraph: 'We now have a blasphemy law in this country. Parliament never voted for it, and the country doesn't want it. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is completely unacceptable, and to argue the protester was shown to be guilty of disorderly conduct because he was attacked by others is grotesque. 'I will introduce a Bill to put a stop to all of this next week. I challenge the Government to support it.' Sir Gavin Williamson, who is among the MPs who signed the Bill, said: 'This Bill rightly draws a clear line in rejecting any attempt to introduce blasphemy laws through the back door. 'Britain abolished such laws to uphold open debate, critical thought, and the principle that no idea or belief is beyond scrutiny. That must not be undone.' At Westminster magistrates' court on Monday, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kudish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict. During his protest, Coskun was attacked by a passer-by, who kicked and punched him and spat him while he lay on the ground. Although the man has admitted assaulting Coskun, he has denied using a knife in the attack. Passing sentence on Coskun on Monday, District Judge John McGarva dismissed the suggestion that the prosecution was an attempt to 'bring back and expand blasphemy law'. He said Coskun had a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers' and that what made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the protest and the fact it was accompanied by abusive language. He said the fact Coskun was attacked during the protest showed he posed a risk to public order. The judge concluded that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and 'were motivated at least in part, by hatred of followers of the religion'. 'Helpful if the law was clarified' The Free Speech Union (FSU) paid for Coskun's legal fees alongside the National Secular Society, with both welcoming the Bill. Lord Young, the director and founder of the FSU, said: 'The Free Speech Union is helping Hamit Coskum appeal his conviction and we're optimistic it will be overturned, but that's a laborious, expensive process and it would be helpful if the law was clarified so the Crown Prosecution Service stops prosecuting people who protest against Islam or any other religion.' A spokesman for the National Secular Society said the conviction of Coskun was 'another damaging chip away at the fundamental right to free expression'. The spokesman added: 'Section 29J's robust free speech provisions explicitly protect expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, and even abuse of beliefs, clearly signalling Parliament's intent to prevent the resurgence of blasphemy laws. 'With public order laws being used as a proxy for blasphemy codes to appease religious fundamentalists, the case for broadening freedom of expression protections is clear.'
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran
Many people in response to the Coskun case appear to believe free speech is an absolute in this country; but it isn't and never has been. For a few centuries, it is true, people have been free (or used to be free) to say what they thought provided they did not incite violence. One exception was the common law offence of blasphemy and the related crime of blasphemous libel. These were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland only last year. They continue to be offences in Northern Ireland and apply only to the Christian faith. Burning a bible in Armagh would, presumably, be considered blasphemous. English law does not forbid the burning of a holy book. Indeed, the district judge in the Coskun case was at pains to say he was not being arraigned for this but for disorderly behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. Coskun, a Turkish-born opponent of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, held the burning book aloft and shouted 'Islam is the religion of terrorists' and 'the Koran is burning'. It was what happened next that made this a crime. A man emerged from an adjacent property and attacked Coskun, threatening to kill him, and a passer-by joined in. He was found guilty of 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.' The judge said: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language… That the conduct was disorderly is not better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.' Yet if someone carrying out a legal activity, namely burning a book, is attacked then surely it is the assailant who is at fault. Arguably, Coskun was not aiming his protest at Muslims but at their religion. The two are not the same, even if adherents disagree, and our right to criticise a religion must be upheld. But our free speech protections have become so tied up with other laws that they are rendered redundant. The prosecutor in the Coskun case said his conviction did not represent any restriction on criticising religion but that is disingenuous to put it charitably. The cause of this legal confusion is the expansion of a multi-cultural society and Parliament's belief that criticising a faith is a proxy for racist hatred. Politicians believe we need laws to protect minority groups from abuse; but these are now used to shut down perfectly legitimate opinions and activities. Over the years we have seen the gradual prohibition of ideas because they hurt someone's feelings or make them angry. But as long as there is no attempt or intention to provoke violence, why should this be a matter for the criminal law? Moreover, why should it be forbidden to criticise any faith whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity? We are assured that this is still permitted and yet it evidently isn't if to do so leads to an arrest because it inspires a hostile reaction. The Public Order Act means any conduct deemed 'likely' to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress' can be punishable. The word 'likely' needs to be removed from legislation since it is impossible to define. Indeed, the fault here lies with Parliament's constant tinkering. America's founding fathers introduced the First Amendment to the constitution because they did not trust the legislature to uphold free speech. It states that 'Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech'. That is unambiguous whereas legislators here have done nothing but meddle to the point where no-one is clear where the boundaries lie any more. There is more to come with a new definition of 'Islamophobia' being drawn up by a committee appointed by Angela Rayner due to be published next month. The Coskun case has become a cause célèbre, taken up by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society which objects to the revival of a blasphemy law and is backing an appeal. In particular, it is seen as a unique protection for Islam, though I doubt Hasidic Jews would take kindly to a Torah being burned outside their synagogue after a Shabbat service. Any threat of disorder would presumably trigger an arrest, though I would not be confident of that. The cost of defending freedom can come at a much higher price than the £240 fine received by Coskun. The Swedish Koran burner, Salwan Momika, was murdered in Stockholm earlier this year.
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
Bringing back blasphemy laws would only be bad for Muslims
As a Muslim, I do not welcome the conviction of a man who set fire to a copy of the Quran. Hamit Coskun – a 50-year-old of Armenian and Kurdish descent who was born and raised in Turkey, and whose family have suffered persecution at the hands of Islamists – was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. He was fined £240 after he held the flaming book aloft outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge while shouted 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'F*** Islam'. His one-man protest wound up when he was himself assaulted by a passer-by. Although I find the burning of the Quran a thoroughly grotesque act – on a par, say, with derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad – the reality is that England is a country where the medieval common-law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel have been scrapped. Following the verdict, Coskun asked: 'Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said that the decision was wrong, as it put free speech is under threat: 'It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. I have no confidence in 'Two-Tier Keir' to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.' The judge made clear that it was not the burning of the holy text of Islam that warranted prosecution, but other factors. The CPS had argued that Coskun's actions had been 'a real threat to public order', while the defendant was said to have made Islamophobic comments during police interviews. There is a growing Muslim population in Britain who hold their faith very dearly – myself included – but for others, they are anxious over the presence of Islam in modern Britain and the impact of orthodox religious doctrines on wider society. The ruling to find Coskun guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence will reinforce the public perception that Islam is provided with preferential treatment under Britain's model of multicultural governance – which, in turn, will only serve to harden anti-Muslim hostility and prejudices. Contrary to this ruling being in the interests of so-called 'diversity management', it runs the risk of further undermining social cohesion. There is also the possibility that it will encourage an uptick in Quran burnings – which is an act which rarely takes place on British soil. In Scandinavia, the tension between freedom of speech and desecration of holy texts has recently been laid bare. In Sweden – a country which had some of the strongest protections for freedom of expression in the world and abolished its blasphemy laws back in the 1970s – people have been charged over the burning of the Quran. This included Salman Momika, an anti-Islam Iraqi refugee who was shot dead in January – a killing that was welcomed by al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, Denmark has passed a law to stop Quran burnings, banning the 'inappropriate treatment' of religious texts, with offenders now potentially facing imprisonment. This was quite the U-turn after the parliament, only a few years earlier, repealed a 334-year-old blasphemy law. In the UK, there is now growing pressure to re-introduce similar laws, with the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, last year calling on Keir Starmer to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions. While the prime minister did not pledge support for Ali's proposal, neither did he rule it out. Blasphemy laws in England and Wales were abolished by a Labour government in 2008. But sometimes, it is the perception that a particular right is under threat that results in the greater exercising of it. This ruling is likely to heighten anti-religion rebelliousness, not reduce it – which is not an ideal outcome, most of all for religious social conservatives. The reality is that England is a country with an established church, which provides its faith minorities with considerable religious freedoms. British Muslims benefit from a wide array of opportunities, rights and protections which are not enjoyed by their co-religionists in other European countries such as France, where the Fifth Republic's militant secular universalism is undeniably oppressive towards its Muslim communities. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England, King Charles III, is arguably the most pro-Islam figurehead in the western world. His Majesty has previously championed Muslim contributions to the European Renaissance, extolled the virtues of Islamic finance, and championed Islam's emphasis on environmental sustainability. But none of this should be taken for granted – the pendulum should not swing so far, that the freedom to dissent and rally against organised religion in our liberal democracy is undermined by the courts. The very real fact is that religious freedom is protected by the right to blaspheme; far from being contradictory, they are mutually reinforcing. Adherents of Islam in England have the freedom to proselytise and work towards spreading their faith, known as da'wah. This can involve criticising other faiths and challenging their core tenets – such as the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation in Christianity, or idolatry in polytheistic religions such as Hinduism. Devout members of non-Muslim faith groups may find this to be gravely insulting to their faiths – indeed, blasphemous. But that is part of the social contract: with religious freedom comes the responsibility of accepting that others will behave towards one's religion in a way they may not like, to the point it may be considered grossly offensive. It is time for religious social conservatives – especially in Muslim communities – to recognise that freedom of expression is a friend, not an enemy, of Islam in modern Britain. That would be a major breakthrough for community relations in our multi-faith society.
