Latest news with #freedom of expression
Telegraph
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's Palestine Action ban could be breaking international law, says UN
The United Nations has said Sir Keir Starmer's decision to proscribe Palestine Action could be a breach of international law. Volker Türk, the body's human rights chief, accused the Labour government of a 'disproportionate and unnecessary' ban after the group s pray-painted an RAF aircraft red last month. He said banning a group that does not threaten death or serious injury 'misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism' and that it could breach the right to freedom of expression for protesters. Sir Keir's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act makes it a criminal offence to be a member of the group, express support or wear clothing that would create 'reasonable suspicion' that a person was a member. Breaking the law carries a potential sentence of up to 14 years in prison. More than 200 people have been arrested in connection with Palestine Action since the ban came into force on July 5, mostly at protests against the Government's policy on Palestine. But not a single person has been charged with any terror offences, it is understood. Police forces have arrested dozens of people over the past three weeks at protests across the country, many of whom were just holding signs saying 'We support Palestine Action'. The row comes as Sir Keir faces a rebellion from at least four Cabinet ministers, who have either publicly or privately called for the Government to recognise Palestine as a state immediately. The Prime Minister has said he will issue a formal recognition of Palestine at a time 'most conducive to peace,' but ministers disagree about whether that moment has already been reached. Almost 60 MPs have written to Downing Street with the same demand to recognise the territory now. Mr Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the definition of terrorist acts 'should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury or to the taking of hostages'. He said: 'It misuses the gravity and impact of terrorism to expand it beyond those clear boundaries, to encompass further conduct that is already criminal under the law.' 'The decision appears disproportionate and unnecessary. It limits the rights of many people involved with and supportive of Palestine Action who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,' he said. 'As such, it appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.' The UN's statement is inconvenient for Sir Keir, who has repeatedly said he will go to great lengths to prevent the UK from breaching international law. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, said last month that international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of Sir Keir's government. He has issued legal guidance suggesting that the UK should not support strikes on Iran by the US because they may not be legal. Both men have been criticised for their decision to abide by an advisory UN ruling on the Chagos Islands, which resulted in the territory being signed away to Mauritius earlier this year.
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.'
