Latest news with #FreeSpeechUnion
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- General
- Telegraph
Pensioner receives police payout over ‘thought crime' tweet
A retired special constable has been given compensation of £20,000 after being wrongly arrested over a social media post warning about rising anti-Semitism. Julian Foulkes, from Gillingham, Kent, was handcuffed at his home by six officers after replying to a pro-Palestinian activist on X. Kent Police officers searched his home and commented on his 'very Brexity' book collection. The force detained the 71-year-old for eight hours, interrogated and issued him with a caution after officers visited his home on Nov 2 2023. Earlier this month, Kent Police confirmed that the caution was a mistake and had been deleted from Mr Foulkes's record. Tim Smith, the force's chief constable, later phoned Mr Foulkes personally to offer an apology for the 'ordeal he endured'. Now, in a letter sent to Mr Foulkes' solicitors, the force reiterated Mr Smith's apology for the 'distress caused by the actions of his officers' . It also confirmed Kent Police would agree to an out-of-court settlement after Mr Foulkes launched a legal challenge, supported by the Free Speech Union (FSU), against the force for wrongful arrest and detention. The letter, sent by a lawyer for the force, read: 'I am instructed to accept the offer of early resolution without recourse to litigation by payment of compensation in the sum of £20,000 plus your client's reasonable legal fees in full and final settlement of all prospective claims arising from his arrest on Nov 2 2023.' Mr Foulkes told The Telegraph he was 'naturally pleased that Kent Police had been swift to follow their apology with compensation'. 'However, this was never about money,' he said. 'For me, it was a simple matter of right and wrong and I now need to see that the full investigation I have been promised takes place and necessary actions are taken to prevent any recurrence.' On Friday, Kent Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over the incident. Mr Foulkes added: 'I have been very fortunate in receiving superb assistance from the FSU and I would like to thank them once again for their help and support.' Police body-worn camera footage captured officers scrutinising Mr Foulkes's collection of books by authors such as Douglas Murray, a Telegraph contributor, and issues of The Spectator, pointing to what they described as 'very Brexity things'. Mr Foulkes's X post replied to an activist threatening to sue Suella Braverman, the home secretary at the time, for calling pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London ' hate marches '. In the post, sent two days before police visited his home, Mr Foulkes wrote: 'One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…' Mr Foulkes's X post was referring to news reports of an anti-Semitic mob that stormed an airport in Dagestan, Russia, looking for Jewish passengers. On Nov 2, six officers arrived at Mr Foulkes's home, armed with batons and pepper spray. He was arrested, fingerprinted, photographed and swabbed for DNA. After his home was searched, the retired special constable was locked in a police cell for eight hours and interrogated on suspicion of malicious communications. Fearing that further escalation could impact his ability to visit his daughter, who lives in Australia, he accepted a caution despite having committed no offence. Matt Elkins, director of Legisia Legal Services, who helped get Mr Foulkes's police record deleted, said while the compensation was welcome as this had 'never been about money but about correcting an injustice '. He said: 'The police don't always admit they're in the wrong, so I think Kent Police should be acknowledged for their prompt mea culpa. 'The compensation is, of course, a good starting point, but I hope this is just a first step towards some deep introspection from the police, and some constructive changes.' 'End of the beginning' Dr Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel for the FSU, said: 'The [FSU] is pleased to see that Kent Police has done the right thing and apologised to Julian, with due compensation. 'This is, however, merely the end of the beginning – we now need to see a full and credible investigation into the outrageous violations of Julian's basic freedoms. 'Kent Police must ensure that the distress to Julian, and the cost to the taxpayer, result in lessons learnt and a realisation that policing by consent requires a police service worthy of the consent of free citizens.' Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said it was 'disgraceful' that Mr Foulkes had been 'investigated and harassed in the first place'. He added: 'Police should be catching real criminals, not wasting time on non-criminal social media posts. 'This has happened again and again and the officers responsible for this shocking incident need to be held responsible. ' Police chiefs need to get a grip and end this nonsense.' Mr Philp also called on the Government to support his proposed amendment to Labour's Crime and Policing Bill, and 'abolish non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) '. The amendment will seek to block police forces keeping records on individuals who have not broken the law but are accused of expressing views or behaviour deemed offensive. The Conservatives previously said they were putting forward the amendment because it was 'clear the use of NCHIs has spiralled out of control'.
Metro
3 days ago
- Politics
- Metro
Convicting man accused of setting fire to Quran could 'reintroduce blasphemy'
Prohibition of blasphemy could soon come back if a man accused of burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London is convicted, campaigners say. Hamit Coskun, 50, allegedly shouted 'F*** Islam', 'Islam is a religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text up in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13. 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'. Lawyers say this was motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', in violation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. Coskun is on trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday and has pleaded not guilty to both charges. 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), who say they are defending them because they believe 'no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of any religion, whether Christian or Muslim.' Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, warned: '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.' The NSS claims Coskun is an asylum seeker who fled Turkey, having been a political prisoner for almost a decade, who 'thought 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.' 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 well-being of hundreds of thousands of so-called 'apostates' in the UK and their right to freedom of thought and conscience.' In 2023, the decision to allow two men to stage a controversial protest outside a mosque in Sweden was widely condemned. More Trending Salwan Momika, who is thought to be an Iraqi living in Sweden, tore pages from a Quran, wiped his shoes on them and draped bacon across the book before setting it on fire. Swedish authorities granted permission for the protest to go ahead and Muslim-majority nations slammed the burning of the holy Islamic text. Muslims consider the Quran the sacred word of God and any intentional damage or show of disrespect towards it is considered extremely offensive. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said the protest, which coincided with the beginning of one of the most important Muslim holidays of Eid al-Adha, was 'legal but not appropriate'. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Seven people still in hospital after car ploughed into Liverpool fans MORE: London's congestion charge set to rise – here's how much it could cost you MORE: Adidas is latest cyberattack victim with shoppers' data stolen
North Wales Chronicle
3 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Burning of Koran ‘posed a threat to public order', prosecutors say
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. 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 at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, prosecutor Philip McGhee said: 'He was in a public place, there were other people around within sight and hearing of him. 'He had evidently chosen the time and location deliberately as he would later admit to in interview under caution.' He added: '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. 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.
Powys County Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Powys County Times
Conviction of man over Koran burning ‘could resurrect crime of blasphemy'
The conviction of a man accused of religiously aggravated disorderly behaviour over the burning of a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London could see a return to a prohibition on blasphemy, campaigners have warned. 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. 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. 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.'
South Wales Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Burning of Koran ‘posed a threat to public order', prosecutors say
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. 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 at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, prosecutor Philip McGhee said: 'He was in a public place, there were other people around within sight and hearing of him. 'He had evidently chosen the time and location deliberately as he would later admit to in interview under caution.' He added: '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. 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.
