Latest news with #NationalSecularSociety
Economist
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Economist
A ruling in Britain stokes fears of backdoor blasphemy laws
It takes a lot to get religious lobby groups to agree with the National Secular Society (NSS). But such an alliance has emerged since Hamit Coskun was convicted on June 2nd of a religiously motivated public-order offence after setting fire to a Koran. He was fined £240 ($325).
Newsweek
03-06-2025
- General
- Newsweek
JD Vance Is Being Proven Right About Europe's Free Speech Problem
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When JD Vance stood before European leaders in Munich this past February, warning that free speech was "in retreat" across the West, his remarks were met with audible discomfort in the room. The gravest threat to democracy in Europe, he argued, wasn't external—it was the internal erosion of liberal principles like free expression. "If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you," the U.S. vice president told a visibly stunned room of diplomats. At the time, his comments were widely dismissed in both U.S. and European policy circles as either populist pablum or unnecessarily provocative. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called them "not acceptable." Vance had cited arrests in the UK and restrictions under the European Union's Digital Services Act as examples. Months later, however, his warnings seem less abstract. In England this week, Hamit Coskun was convicted and given a $325 fine for burning a copy of the Quran in public—a case that sparked debate not only for the act itself but for its broader implications. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick accused the UK of enforcing "a two-tier justice system," suggesting similar punishment would be unlikely had the burned text been a Bible. "Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it," Jenrick said. The National Secular Society, which supported Coskun on his case, also condemned the ruling, calling it "a significant blow to freedom of expression" and "a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes." Hamit Coskun arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, Monday June 2, 2025. Hamit Coskun arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, Monday June 2, 2025. Aaron Chown/PA via AP The case echoed examples Vance had raised in Munich, including the case of a Swedish man prosecuted for burning a Quran during a protest — in a ruling handed down five days after another man also being prosecuted over the incident was shot dead. In both cases, Judge Göran Lundahl ruled that "freedom of expression does not constitute a free pass to do or say anything"—a line Vance saw as emblematic of a retreat from Enlightenment values. In the UK, debates over religious speech have reignited calls for and against blasphemy-style protections. Jenrick wrote on X that the ruling "revives a blasphemy law" repealed by Parliament in 2008 after a secularist campaign. Writing in The Spectator, conservative commentator Douglas Murray warned that the Labour government was "reconsidering the introduction of a blasphemy law"—an idea the previous Conservative administration had rejected outright. He argued that efforts to define and police "Islamophobia" were increasingly blurring into efforts to criminalize offensive speech. "You may march through the centre of London or Stockholm week after week supporting groups that want to annihilate the Jewish race—but don't get caught upsetting Muslims," Murray wrote. "These are the rules of the game and everyone knows it." Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesman, Dave Pares, responded Tuesday: "We have no blasphemy laws in England and there are no plans to introduce any." Diverging Philosophies Vance's speech in Munich drew a stark contrast between U.S. and European views on free speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on speech in most cases, even when it's offensive, hateful or inflammatory. The legal default is to protect speech unless it causes direct harm or incites violence—a principle that has been fiercely defended across party lines for generations. US Vice President JD Vance gestures as he speaks with NATO Secretary General during a meeting on the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany on February 14, 2025. US Vice President JD Vance gestures as he speaks with NATO Secretary General during a meeting on the sidelines of the 61st Munich Security Conference (MSC) in Munich, southern Germany on February 14, 2025. Photo by Tobias SCHWARZ / AFP) (Photo by TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP via Getty Images European nations, by contrast, typically criminalize "hate speech," broadly defined as language that insults or incites hatred against protected groups. Supporters argue such laws maintain social harmony and prevent violence. But as Vance warned, these protections can suppress dissent, satire and religious or political expression. Resistance to European speech laws is increasingly reflected at the ballot box. Populist and nationalist parties—often critical of immigration and political censorship—are gaining traction, mirroring trends seen in the U.S. over the last decade. In Poland, Trump-backed conservative Karol Nawrocki narrowly won the presidency last weekend. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is polling at record highs. Vance's remarks weren't merely a defense of American legal norms—they were a direct challenge to a Western consensus that increasingly treats "hate speech" as a criminal offense, even when no violence is incited. Ideology and Influence Back in February, many in Munich dismissed Vance's speech as alarmist or extreme. But the controversies that followed—over blasphemy, protest, and political expression—have sharpened the very divide he described. To critics, Vance misunderstood Europe's emphasis on social cohesion. To supporters, he said what others wouldn't: that a democracy afraid of free speech is a democracy in retreat. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and U.S. Vice President JD Vance greet visitors during the Memorial Day wreath-laying ceremony at the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National Cemetery on May 26, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia. U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and U.S. Vice President JD Vance greet visitors during the Memorial Day wreath-laying ceremony at the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National Cemetery on May 26, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia."His critiques of Europe derive at least in part from his ideological convictions," John Fousek, a professor in international relations at New York University, told Newsweek. Fousek explained that while Vance's views are grounded in constitutional arguments, they also reflect a broader worldview. "At the core of those convictions is American nationalism, and more specifically, Christian nationalism. These beliefs likely shape his views on the U.S. relationship with the 'outside' world more generally." Responding to Vance's criticism, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasized the historical roots of Europe's approach: "Today's democracies in Germany and Europe are founded on the historic awareness that democracies can be destroyed by radical anti-democrats. That's why we've built institutions to defend them—and rules that protect, not limit, our freedoms." French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot also weighed in. "No one is required to adopt our model," he posted on X. "But no one can impose theirs on us. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in Europe."
Roya News
03-06-2025
- General
- Roya News
Man convicted for Quran burning outside Turkish consulate in London
A 50-year-old man has been convicted of a religiously aggravated offence after burning a copy of the Quran in front of the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year. Hamit Coskun, who traveled from Derby to Knightsbridge, set fire to the Islamic holy book while making offensive remarks about Islam on February 13. The act, which took place outside the consulate on Rutland Gardens, was deemed both inflammatory and hostile by Westminster Magistrates Court. District Judge John McGarva found Coskun guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence as well as disorderly behaviour, handing down a 240 pound (USD 324) fine and imposing an additional statutory surcharge of 96 pounds (USD 130). In court, Judge McGarva criticized the nature of Coskun's actions, describing them as 'provocative and taunting,' and stated, 'You have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.' The judge said Coskun's motivations were rooted in personal and familial experiences in Turkey, adding, 'It's not possible to separate your views about the religion from your views about the followers.' He further noted, 'Your actions in burning the Quran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language… motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.' Coskun, who is of Kurdish and Armenian descent, had argued that his protest was aimed solely at the Turkish government, particularly President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom he accused of turning Turkey into a haven for "radical Islamists". Prosecutors cited social media posts where Coskun denounced Erdogan's government and voiced concern about alleged moves toward establishing a 'Sharia regime.' Following his conviction, Coskun issued a statement calling the ruling 'an assault on free speech' and warning that it could discourage others from exercising their rights to protest. His legal defense has received backing from both the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union (FSU), who have vowed to challenge the verdict through every legal channel. An FSU spokesperson said the organization is prepared to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary, arguing, 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.' The case has also drawn attention from political figures. Equalities Minister and Conservative MP Kemi Badenoch took to X, stating, 'De facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin. Freedom of belief, and freedom not to believe, are inalienable rights in Britain.' While a spokesperson for the prime minister refrained from commenting on the specific case, they reaffirmed that 'there are no blasphemy laws and no plans to introduce any.' Judge McGarva emphasized in his ruling that the conviction was not an attempt to revive blasphemy laws, which were officially abolished in 2008. He acknowledged that burning a religious book is not inherently unlawful but said the combination of Islamophobic remarks and inflammatory conduct rendered Coskun's actions criminal in this instance. Humanists UK also weighed in, expressing concern about the legal threshold for such prosecutions. A spokesperson stated, 'We must make sure that public order legislation is not used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression.'
Epoch Times
03-06-2025
- General
- Epoch Times
Man Convicted Over Koran-Burning in London Says Ruling Is Assault on Free Speech
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London has branded his prosecution 'an assault on free speech' as campaigners argued the ruling 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.' Hamit Coskun was found guilty on Monday of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted '[Expletive] Islam,' 'Islam is religion of terrorism,' and 'Koran is burning' while holding the flaming religious text aloft earlier this year. The 50-year-old had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and that he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.' Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court 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 section five of the Public Order Act 1986. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands to carry out the act in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on Feb. 13 and in court argued he had protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression. His legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned.' Related Stories 6/2/2025 5/29/2025 In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said: 'This decision is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. 'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam. 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, posting on social media platform X, said the decision was 'wrong' and 'revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed.' McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law.' In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Koran are 'not necessarily disorderly,' but added, 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers,' based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers.' The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Koran very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.' Hamit Coskun leaving Westminster Magistrates' Court after being convicted and fined, in London on June 2, 2025. Aaron Chown/PA NSS Chief Executive Stephen Evans described the verdict as 'a significant blow to freedom of expression' and one which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.' Evans said the conviction 'suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws.' He added: 'This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive. 'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.' An FSU spokesperson said they will take the case 'all the way to the European Court of Human Rights' if necessary. They added: 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.' Humanists UK said that while the 'defendant's views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them,' he had not expressed 'anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims' meaning in their view the ruling 'does raise concerns.' The organisation said the 'bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low' and warned public order legislation must not be 'used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression.' In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a [expletive] idiot.' The court heard that the man approached Coskun allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, chase him, and spit at and kick him. 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.
The Guardian
02-06-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Man fined after burning Qur'an outside Turkish consulate in London
A man has been fined after he set fire to a Qur'an outside the Turkish consulate in London, in an act that was deemed 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims' by a judge. Hamit Coskun, 50, who was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence on Monday, called his prosecution 'an assault on free speech'. In February, Coskun travelled from his home in the Midlands to Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, where he set fire to a copy of the Islamic holy book and shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Qur'an is burning'. Coskun, who was born in Turkey and is half Kurdish and half Armenian, argued in court that he had protested peacefully and burning the Qur'an amounted to freedom of expression. The district judge, John McGarva, found that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and said he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims'. Coskun had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers but Judge McGarva said he could not accept this. Coskun's legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned'. The advocacy group Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend) quoted the judge's sentencing remarks on X, commenting on the ruling with the hashtag #hatespeechisnotfreespeech. The ruling has also prompted comment from figures in Westminster. The prime minister's official spokesperson, who was asked about the case, declined to comment but said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any. Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative party, said on X that the case 'should go to appeal'. 'Freedom of belief, and freedom not to believe, are inalienable rights in Britain,' she said. 'I'll defend those rights to my dying day.' McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law'. In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Qur'an are 'not necessarily disorderly', but added: 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers' based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family, and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers'. The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Qur'an very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.'
