Criminalising Koran burning would be reintroducing blasphemy law, court told

Leader Live

4 days ago

Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft outside the Turkish consulate in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.
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.
At his trial on Wednesday, Katy Thorne KC, defending, said: 'The prosecution, in bringing this prosecution at all, is seeking to introduce a law unknown to this land, namely blasphemy in relation to Islam.'
Hamit Coskun is charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence (Ben Whitley/PA)
Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021.
In Northern Ireland blasphemy laws date back to the early 19th century and, while rarely used, blasphemy and blasphemous libel remain offences.
Coskun, giving evidence via a Turkish interpreter, told the court that he has the 'right' to criticise Islam but said that he does not like using swear words.
Ms Thorne said that burning the Koran 'cannot be a criminal offence' and accused the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of an abuse of process in its decision to bring the case against Coskun.
She said in her written argument: 'To render such an act a criminal offence is tantamount to reintroducing a blasphemy law in relation to Islam, rendering the Koran a specially protected object in the UK, where a flag or another book would not be, and rendering trenchant or offensive criticism of Islam a criminal offence, is also akin to reinstating an offence of blasphemy.
'People must be free to exercise their religious or non-religious beliefs and to manifest those beliefs in whatever non-violent way they choose, and any curtailing by the state of that freedom must be absolutely necessary in a democratic society.'
Ms Thorne said that Coskun 'did not exhort hate' but voiced his dislike and frustration with a religion.
She added: 'He expressed nothing to suggest that he was hostile to those who followed Islam.
'He did so outside the Turkish Consulate, a political institution, which provides further evidence he was not seeking to persuade others to dislike Islam, but express his personal criticism of Turkey and its stance on Islam.
'His protest was specifically political and thus, it is submitted, requires the highest protection of freedom of speech.'
Prosecutor Philip McGhee said that Coskun was not being prosecuted simply for the burning of the Koran, but for 'disorderly conduct'.
Mr McGhee said of Ms Thorne's argument: 'There is simply no misconduct in this case.'
District Judge John McGarva ruled that there was no abuse of process and dismissed the application.
Mr McGhee added that the decision to prosecute does not affect the ability of others to criticise religion.
The prosecutor had earlier said that Coskun had deliberately chosen the time and location of his demonstration.
He went on: 'His actions gave rise to a very clear threat to public order and went beyond a legitimate expression of protest, crossing the line to pose a threat to public order.'
Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands on February 13 and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard.
A man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran, the court heard.
Coskun allegedly made reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot', Mr McGhee said.
The man went away and came back, the court heard.
He approached Coskun, chased him and kicked and spat on him after he fell to the ground, Mr McGhee said.
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.
Coskun, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard.
Ahead of his trial, in a quote released through the Free Speech Union, he said: 'Encountering such treatment in a country like England, which I truly believed to be a place where freedom prevailed, was a real shock to me.'
His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS).
The Free Speech Union said it is defending him 'not because we're anti-Islam, but because we believe no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of any religion, whether Christian or Muslim'.
It said Coskun is an asylum seeker who fled Turkey, having been a political prisoner for almost a decade, who 'thought he was coming to a democratic country where he would be free to peacefully protest about a particular religion'.
Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the organisation, added: 'The rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression are sacrosanct and should not be disregarded because of fears about inflaming community tensions in a multicultural society.'
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.'
The trial, which is due to last one day, continues.