Conviction of man over Koran burning ‘could resurrect crime of blasphemy'
Hamit Coskun, 50, allegedly 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.
The charge sheet says that Coskun was motivated by hostility towards Muslims.
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 Stephen Evans, NSS
Coskun is accused 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 the Public Order Act 1986.
He is also accused of 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 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Coskun is on trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday and has pleaded not guilty to both charges.
His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS).
This reintroduction of blasphemy by the back door would have profound consequences Humanists UK
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS said: '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 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
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Emergency workers to get greater protection from racial abuse in house calls
The Government said it would close an existing loophole that allows people to get away with racial and religious abuse towards police, fire and ambulance workers making house calls. The measures were tabled on Tuesday as amendments to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill. It is currently illegal to racially or religiously abuse anyone in public, but this does not extend to behaviour within a private home under the Public Order Act 1986. The gap was originally designed to ensure that laws allowing police to keep public spaces free from serious disorder did not overstep into private conversations held in homes. The Home Office said the law has left 'emergency workers vulnerable and unprotected to racial and religious-based abuse and harassment during house calls', and 'unable to hold the perpetrators to account for their behaviour'. The department added that 'reports of emergency workers being abused for their race or religion while in private homes have increased'. Under the change, those abusing emergency workers in any setting could face a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said emergency workers 'should never have to tolerate abuse due to their race or religion while simply doing their job'. Dame Diana added: 'By closing this loophole, we're sending a clear message that racial and religious abuse directed towards those who serve our communities will not be tolerated.' Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said the new measures would 'crack down on perpetrators'. Mr Streeting added: 'Our emergency workers carry out lifesaving work every day and deserve to feel safe from violence or intimidation. 'Anyone who violates this core principle brings shame on themselves and will feel the full force of the law, wherever they are.' Andy Rhodes, director of the National Police Wellbeing Service, said the amendment would 'better protect officers and staff who are there to protect the public'. Mr Rhodes added: 'Sadly, the role they play means they can often be faced with some incredibly challenging and hostile situations, especially in private homes, and over time this can take a toll. 'The protection of our officers and staff is a clear priority for all police chiefs. Hate crime has a devastating impact on individual victims and racial and faith-based discrimination against officers or emergency workers cannot be tolerated in any form.' Minister for Fire Alex Norris said the Government 'stands firmly behind emergency service workers and will not tolerate abusive behaviour towards those risking their lives to keep us safe'.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sydney Muslim cleric tells court Jewish people can't be offended by him calling them ‘vile' as lectures were private
A Sydney Muslim cleric being sued for alleged racial discrimination has told the federal court no Jewish person could be offended over a series of lectures in which he described Jewish people in the seventh century as 'mischievous', 'treacherous' and 'vile' because the lectures were delivered to a private Muslim audience. Wissam Haddad – whose legal name is William but who is also known as Abu Ousayd – is being sued by two senior members of Australia's peak Jewish body, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), over a series of lectures he gave in Bankstown in November 2023 and subsequently broadcast online, in which he is alleged to have maligned Jewish people. Haddad allegedly breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits offensive behaviour based on race or ethnic origin. Haddad's defence argues the speeches were delivered to a known Muslim audience, in a private place, and fail the clause in 18C that the offensive act is unlawful when it is committed 'otherwise than in private'. In submissions filed before the federal court, Haddad argues four of the five speeches were delivered at his prayer centre, Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown. 'The centre is a stand-alone building which is manifestly a private property – it is surrounded by high black fencing and its entrance carries a sign that says 'Private Property No Trespassing'.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Haddad's submissions to the court said there was no standing invitation for any non-Muslims to attend the centre. 'There will be no evidence that any of the speeches was attended or heard by anyone who was not a regular congregant of the centre and a practising Muslim.' The remaining speech was a conversation in a room between three people. Haddad was called as a witness late on Wednesday morning. He told the court uploading his speeches to social media was not part of his responsibilities. 'I'm not involved,' he told the court. But under repeated questioning from one of the applicant's barristers, Peter Braham SC, he told the court he knew his speeches would be posted online. 'Yes I did.' Haddad said the speeches were posted online by 'someone from the community'. Asked who it was, Haddad said: 'I'm not at liberty to give his name because I don't think it's relevant.' Peter Wertheim, one of the applicants in the case and ECAJ's co-chief executive, told the federal court on Tuesday that he was first alerted to the presence of Haddad's speeches online by coverage of them in mainstream media. He said Haddad's speeches used 'overtly dehumanising' language. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'Making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous people, calling them rats and cowards … are things which I think would be experienced by most Jews as dehumanising,' Wertheim said. His barrister, Braham, told the court Haddad's speeches repeated a range of offensive tropes and were designed to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish people. The court heard Haddad had sound recording and camera equipment installed to record his speeches, which Wertheim's barrister argued was for the purpose of disseminating his message far beyond his congregants. He would speak before a backdrop branded with the Al Madina Dawah Centre logo, but which also included logos of YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms. The applicants are seeking an injunction that Haddad's five offending sermons be removed from the internet, and an order that he refrain from publishing similar speeches in future. Wertheim and his co-applicant, Robert Goot, are also seeking publication of a 'corrective notice' on Haddad's prayer centre's social media pages, and to be awarded the legal costs of bringing their action. They have not sought damages or compensation. Haddad's barrister, Andrew Boe, argued the cleric's speeches were addressed to, and intended only for, a private Muslim congregation and that Haddad was not responsible for them being published online. Boe said it was unlikely a Jewish person would have discovered the speeches, to then be offended by them, if the recordings had not been covered and thus amplified by mainstream media. 'It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it,' Boe told the court. Boe argued there must be room, in a democratic society, for 'the confronting, the challenging, even the shocking'. The hearing, before Justice Angus Stewart, is expected to run until the end of the week.
North Wales Chronicle
7 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Emergency workers to get greater protection from racial abuse in house calls
The Government said it would close an existing loophole that allows people to get away with racial and religious abuse towards police, fire and ambulance workers making house calls. The measures were tabled on Tuesday as amendments to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill. It is currently illegal to racially or religiously abuse anyone in public, but this does not extend to behaviour within a private home under the Public Order Act 1986. The gap was originally designed to ensure that laws allowing police to keep public spaces free from serious disorder did not overstep into private conversations held in homes. The Home Office said the law has left 'emergency workers vulnerable and unprotected to racial and religious-based abuse and harassment during house calls', and 'unable to hold the perpetrators to account for their behaviour'. The department added that 'reports of emergency workers being abused for their race or religion while in private homes have increased'. Under the change, those abusing emergency workers in any setting could face a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment. Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson said emergency workers 'should never have to tolerate abuse due to their race or religion while simply doing their job'. Dame Diana added: 'By closing this loophole, we're sending a clear message that racial and religious abuse directed towards those who serve our communities will not be tolerated.' Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said the new measures would 'crack down on perpetrators'. Mr Streeting added: 'Our emergency workers carry out lifesaving work every day and deserve to feel safe from violence or intimidation. 'Anyone who violates this core principle brings shame on themselves and will feel the full force of the law, wherever they are.' Andy Rhodes, director of the National Police Wellbeing Service, said the amendment would 'better protect officers and staff who are there to protect the public'. Mr Rhodes added: 'Sadly, the role they play means they can often be faced with some incredibly challenging and hostile situations, especially in private homes, and over time this can take a toll. 'The protection of our officers and staff is a clear priority for all police chiefs. Hate crime has a devastating impact on individual victims and racial and faith-based discrimination against officers or emergency workers cannot be tolerated in any form.' Minister for Fire Alex Norris said the Government 'stands firmly behind emergency service workers and will not tolerate abusive behaviour towards those risking their lives to keep us safe'.
