Why I burnt the Quran
My name is Hamit Coskun and I've just been convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence. My 'crime'? Burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Moments later, I was attacked in full view of the street by a man. I was hospitalised. Then I was arrested.
Some may say that book-burning is a poor substitute for reasoned debate. I would counter that it was a symbolic, non-violent form of expression intended to draw attention to the ongoing move from the secularism of my country of birth to a regime which embraces hardline Islam.
As I told Westminster Magistrates' Court, what I did constituted political protest and the law, as I understood it, was on my side. CPS guidance makes clear that legitimate protest can be offensive and on occasion must be, if it is to be effective. In that spirit, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not just polite speech but speech that offends, shocks or disturbs. Political expression, above all, is meant to enjoy the strongest protection.
Alas, the judge ruled otherwise. And the reasoning deployed to convict me raises troubling questions, not only about the scope of public order law but about whether Britain is witnessing the quiet return of blasphemy laws.
Although the man who assaulted me is being prosecuted separately, the Crown says his action helped to prove my guilt. It argued that because I was attacked, my behaviour must not have been peaceful. Under this logic, 'disorderly' no longer depends on conduct, but on how offended or aggressive someone else chooses to be in response.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
34 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
My grandmother grew up brushing her teeth with radioactive toothpaste
Yes, I did listen to a bit of radio. Even a spot of Radio 4 comedy. Brave, I know, but I do like policeman turned comedian Alfie Moore's It's a Fair Cop (currently broadcast on Monday nights in the 6.30pm slot). But nothing serious. Nothing with any gravitas. Or nearly nothing. I did stumble on the latest series on Radio 4's The History Podcast. Well, I say, stumble but, actually, I was given a nudge by its producer. Read more I'd rather slept on Joe Dunthorne's current series Half-Life. I think I'd read the words 'Nazi Germany' in the blurb and decided it wasn't for me. How much Nazi Germany do you need, after all? But that really wasn't what Half-Life was about, as the arresting opening line testified: 'My grandmother,' Dunthorne began, 'grew up brushing her teeth with radioactive toothpaste.' Strong opener. Better still was the information that it was his grandmother's father who had made said toothpaste. Half-Life is a family biography that - like all family biographies - weaves into the flow of history. Dunthorne's great grandfather was a Jewish chemist working in a poison gas lab with the Nazis. And that is just the start of it. All episodes are available on BBC Sounds and The Road Through the Mountains, the episode that aired on Radio 4 this week (on Wednesday) was a particularly tough listen. At the heart of it was a telling of the story of the Dersim Massacre in Turkey in 1937 and 1938, when the Turkish government killed thousands of civilians during a Kurdish rebellion; 14,000 is the government figure. Others suggest the death toll was three or four times that number. 'That's why most people say the river was flowing blood,' Dunthorne's guide told him. 'It was not water, it was just blood.' To escape the Nazis, Dunthorne's family had fled to Turkey. His great grandfather may have helped the Turkish government buy chemical weapons from the Germans. Poison gas was then used to kill those who had fled into the mountains. History, Dunthorne is telling us here, leaves a stain on those who come afterwards. In Half-Lifee you can hear it in his voice. Over on 6 Music Tom Robinson was celebrating his 75th birthday on his Now Playing show on Sunday evening. The BBC's present was to take the slot away from him. Mary Anne Hobbs is taking over this weekend. Tom Robinson celebrated his 75th birthday (Image: BBC) Robinson, who has been occupying Sunday night on 6 Music for the last 14 years - in fact he's been a regular on the station for 23 years, all told - drolly opened proceedings by playing Here's Where the Story Ends by The Sundays. What followed was an understandably slightly self-indulgent two hours in which he played quite a few of his own songs - as requested by his listeners - and, for the most part, displayed a commendably stiff upper lip. He did admit that the whole thing was a little bittersweet, though he encouraged his listeners to tune in to Hobbs's show when it started. At least there were plenty of birthday/farewell messages from his fellow 6 Music DJs and the odd musician - Lauren Laverne, Nithin Sawhney, Jason from Sleaford Mods and Peter Gabriel most notably. Tony Blackburn - still going strong at 82 - also offered his congratulations, as did The Blue Nile's Paul Buchanan. The latter was presumably prompted by that old social media meme of Robinson dancing around the studio to Tinseltown in the Rain. Understandably. That tune is one of 20th-century Scotland's greatest gifts to the world. I was at best an irregular listener to Now Playing, but rather like the late Annie Nightingale, it was always clear Robinson had built up a real rapport with his audience. We're promised a 'borderless spectrum of music' on the new Mary Anne Hobbs show. That's her USP, of course. But is that what listeners want at teatime on Sunday? Time will tell. Listen Out For: Bill Dare: Comedy Alchemist, Radio 4, Thursday, June 12, 6.30pm Talking of Radio 4 comedy … This tribute programme celebrates the career of the late radio and TV comedy producer Bill Dare, creator of The Mary Whitehouse Experience and Dead Ringers. Dare was killed in a motor accident earlier this year.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Pro-Palestinian activist who avoided prosecution after chanting 'I love the 7th of October' is Islamist refugee granted asylum in Britain
A pro-Palestine activist who avoided prosecution after he chanted 'I love the 7th of October' is a Muslim refugee granted asylum in the UK, it emerged today. Mohammad al-Mail, a 27-year-old Kuwaiti national granted refugee status in the UK in 2017, also shouted 'I like an organisation that starts with H' through a megaphone at an anti-Israel protest in Swiss Cottage, north-west London, last September. Mr Al-Mail was arrested by police after the chants over alleged terrorism offences, but after eight months a decision was taken by the CPS not to charge him. He is said to have avoided prosecution by telling officers that the organisation he claimed to love was actually the Home Office, and not terror group Hamas. This is despite him operating a campaign group which states its aim is to achieve 'Islamic supremity' and which has criticised terror groups such as Al-Qaeda for failing to advance global jihad. Meanwhile at the same rally, a Jewish counter-protester was also arrested for holding a placard mocking deaths during attacks involving explosive pagers in Lebanon. The attack targeted Hezbollah members and leaders, and the placard depicted the leader of the proscribed terror group holding a pager, with the word 'beep' repeated three times. The man was charged over the incident in May, but the case has since been dropped. Earlier this year, Mr Al-Mail appeared to make light of the accusations against him, telling an Arabic language podcast the case 'fell apart', the Telegraph reports. He described his answer to police when asked what he meant by the letter H: 'Immediately, I answered, 'It could be the Home Office', you know, the ministry of the interior. 'I love the ministry of the interior', and so on. 'Truly, as the saying goes, 'The worst calamity is the one that makes you laugh'. The Met referred the case twice to the CPS, but both times it decided not to press charges - reportedly due to the issue of it relying on 'speculation' to infer support for a proscribed terror organisation. During the podcast, Mr Al-Mail told listeners to 'take advantage' of October 7, which saw 1,200 people killed by an Hamas incursion into Israel. The resulting war has resulted in almost 57,000 Gazans being killed, many of whom civilians. 'Not every day is like October 7,' Mr Al-Mail added. 'If an opportunity arises, we must fully exploit it. If you strike, make it hurt.' The refugee's views are reiterated by his campaign group Upper Hand Organization, which lists its 'pillars' as 'rightism' and 'Islamic Supremacy'. The English version of his site reveals the group was founded in 2016 in Kuwait, before being banned. It states: 'The Upper Hand Organization is a global movement dedicated to working with and for Muslims worldwide through all means and fields - committed to channeling resources toward strategic projects to achieve Islamic dominance.' It adds that the group 'operates as an entity that asserts its responsibilities extend beyond national borders, with a revolutionary agenda grounded in Islam.' In November, some two months after the march, Mr Al-Mail told his supporters he would surrender to police over the chants but told his followers to 'continue the path of Jihad', claiming peaceful followers of Islam are 'slaves and dwarves'. He added: 'What is coming to you is terrifying – either our annihilation or yours.' After leaving Kuwait, Mr Al-Mail was convicted of 13 offences including defaming the Emir and sentenced in his absence to 53 years in prison. Claiming asylum, he said these were politically and religiously motivated and was granted allowed to remain in the UK on May 5 2017. He later received a partial pardon. Shadow Policing Minister and Conservative MP Chris Philp told the Telegraph: 'The police must urgently re-investigate the incident with a view to re-arresting the man concerned'. He added: 'I am deeply worried that someone came here, was granted asylum and then abused the UK's generosity by expressing extremist views. This is why our human rights and asylum laws need to be changed.' Lord Walney, the Government's former extremism tsar, said the revelations are 'disturbing and raises serious questions for the Metropolitan Police'. 'The fact officers were apparently unaware of this open source material when they submitted the case to the Crown Prosecution Service suggests an alarming lack of rigour in their initial investigation,' he said. 'In light of this, it is vital that the police reopen the case to ensure national security can be protected.' It is understood the CPS is 'urgently' reviewing the decision not to charge Mr Al-Mail.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
We shall not remain a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic ' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, the largest single group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides.
