4 days ago
Man on trial for burning Koran ‘had right to criticise Islam'
In closing submissions on Thursday, Katy Thorne KC, for the defence, said: 'If this country wanted to criminalise the burning of books in public, or burning of religious books in public that would have been done.
'It has been discussed and it has not been criminalised.'
Mr Coskun is accused of carrying out disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to have caused harassment, alarm or distress' by burning a copy of the Koran.
It is further alleged he held it aloft while shouting 'f--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism', and was motivated by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam.
Ms Thorne said his right to criticise religion was 'sacrosanct' and had to be protected.
'We suggest there have been, across history and indeed now, many people who are hostile to other religions.
'Feminists to Catholicism as an example. But that is a sacrosanct act they are entitled to express and however offensive Muslims may find the behaviour and beliefs of the defendant he is entitled to have them.'
Hostility to religion, not its followers
She said his actions were not motivated by a hostility towards the followers of Islam but to the religion itself.
She added: 'He is protesting against the religion of Islam and his governments' relationship with Islam and Islamic terrorism.
'He was motivated by that hostility to Islam and its teaching because of what has happened in his country and what has happened to his family by extremists purporting to act for that religion.
'He was complaining about the move away from secularism, which he holds very dear.
'He was complaining more generally about the teachings of Islam but the reason why he was there in that place were his complaints about Turkey.'
Philip McGhee, for the CPS, said that Mr Coskun was not being prosecuted for the burning of the book.
He said the combination of the derogatory remarks about Islam, and the fact it was done in public, made it a public order offence.
'Aware his behaviour may be disorderly'
'He was aware at the very least that his behaviour may be disorderly', he said.
Mr McGhee added: 'He was motivated at least partly by hostility to followers of Islam by their membership of that group'.
At the end of the hour-long hearing, District Judge John McGarva, refused an application by the CPS to prevent the publication of a video showing the burning of the Koran and the subsequent attack on Mr Coskun.
The prosecutors had argued it could prejudice the upcoming trial of the man who attacked Mr Coskun if it was released.
The video shows Mr Coskun burning the book outside the consulate in Knightsbridge shouting 'Islam is religion of terrorism'.
As he did so, a man from a neighbouring building is seen coming out to ask him why he was doing it. 'Terrorist,' replied Mr Coskun.
The man then goes back inside, before coming out and attacking Mr Coskun. He appears to slash at Mr Coskun with a blade and then begins kicking him when he falls to the ground.
Although he has admitted assaulting Mr Coskun he has denied using a knife in the attack. The man, whose identity is still subject to reporting restrictions, will go on trial in 2027.
Judge McGarva however ruled that the footage should be made available to the press.
'Attack on the freedom of the press'
A spokesman for the Free Speech Union, who are supporting Mr Coskun, said the CPS attempt to prohibit the fact Mr Coskun's attacker had a knife was a 'direct attack on the freedom of the press'.
He said: 'Not only is the Crown Prosecution Service trying to punish Hamit for exercising his right to freedom of expression, but it also sought to ban the press from reporting that Hamit's attacker tried to slash him with a knife – a direct attack on the freedom of the press. The judge wisely threw out this application.
'The truth is that Hamit was the victim of a series of violent attacks. Rather than punish his attackers – only one of the four people who attacked Hamit is being prosecuted – the CPS is attempting to punish him. Now that the judge has lifted the reporting restrictions, the truth is impossible to conceal – this is a clear case of victim blaming.'
Judge McGarva said he would give his verdict on Mr Coskun's case on Monday at the same court.
Addressing the defendant directly, he said: 'I know he is anxious but I have got to get this right. There is quite a lot to think about.'
