It should be legal to make people angry, even by burning the Koran

Telegraph

2 days ago

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.