Latest news with #religiousFreedom
The Independent
3 days ago
- General
- The Independent
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 'f*** 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 February 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'. 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 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam.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'. Judge 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.' 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'. Mr 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 f****** 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 Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to comment on the case but said there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any.
The Independent
3 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Judge set to pass verdict after trial of man who burned Koran
A judge is set to pass verdict after the trial of a man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard last week. 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. The charges are alternative to each other, meaning if hostility towards religion is not proven, Coskun could still be found guilty of the simple offence of disorderly behaviour. His lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, argued last week that the prosecution is effectively trying to revive blasphemy laws, which were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Blasphemy remains an offence in Northern Ireland but is rarely enforced. Prosecutor Philip McGhee said the case is about disorderly conduct, not the act of burning the Koran itself, adding that the prosecution of Coskun does not represent a restriction on criticising religion. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard. 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 f****** idiot'. The man approached him allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, the court heard. The footage appeared to show Coskun back away and use the burning Koran to deflect the attacker, who is alleged to have slashed out at him again. The man chased Coskun, and the defendant stumbled forward and fell to the ground, dropping the Koran, the footage showed. Coskun was spat at and kicked by the man, the court heard. 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 defendant, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard. His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS). District Judge John McGarva will pass verdict at the same court on Monday. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, said before the trial: '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 previously 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.'
Fox News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Christian summer camp sues Colorado over new transgender rule
Print Close By Kristine Parks Published May 20, 2025 A Christian summer camp that has operated in Colorado for decades is suing the state over new state licensing requirements that the camp says violate its religious beliefs on gender and sexuality. Camp IdRaHaJe, which derives its name from the hymn, "I'd Rather Have Jesus," is a Christian children's summer camp for kids ages 6 to 17. The camp has served Colorado families of all faiths and backgrounds since 1948 and welcomes 2,500 to 3,000 campers each year. Camp IdRaHaJe filed a complaint in federal court on May 12 challenging new state licensing rules issued by the Colorado Department of Early Childhood that allegedly require children's resident camps to permit campers access to bathing, dressing and sleeping facilities that align with the camper's gender identity. The camp first tried to get a religious exemption, but the department denied their request, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the legal group representing Camp IdRaHaJe in court. COLORADO PARENTS UNLOAD ON LIBERAL LAWMAKERS, PROMPTING CHANGES TO CONTROVERSIAL GENDER BILL ADF claims that the regulations put children at risk and violate the free exercise, establishment, and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. "Every child deserves respect of privacy," ADF senior counsel Ryan Tucker told Fox News Digital, adding, "But that respect of privacy must extend equally to all students. No one should be forced to share a room or showering facilities with someone of the opposite sex." "The law ignores reality and children are the ones who ultimately pay the price," he continued. Tucker explained that new rules require the Christian camp to abandon its "own faith and mission" in order to continue operating in Colorado. COLORADO'S 'TOTALITARIAN' TRANSGENDERISM BILL SPARKS CONCERNS FROM PARENTS "The state of Colorado has been quite hostile to people of faith over the past several years," Tucker said, referencing other religious liberty lawsuits against the state which have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. "In particular, they're trying to ram down this gender ideology to everyone in the state," he said. The complaint states that families choose to send their kids to IdRaHaJe because of its Christian "policies, programs and education," and that families must agree to follow its policies on sex-specific facilities at registration. Under the new state policy, the camp must choose between upholding its religious beliefs and mission or abandoning these in order to keep its license and continue operating the camp, according to the complaint. In June, the camp must certify it is complying with all the resident camp regulations and a licensing specialist will also be visiting to inspect the camp to see if it is in compliance, according to the complaint. Camp IdRaHaJe has decided to continue operating under its current policies even though this risks fines and the loss of its license to operate. ADF says other children's resident camps are also expressing concerns about the new state licensing requirements. The legal group is asking the court to declare that these regulations on gender identity are unconstitutional. "The government has no place telling religious summer camps that it's 'lights out' for upholding their religious beliefs about human sexuality," ADF legal counsel Andrea Dill also said in a statement. "Camp IdRaHaJe exists to present the truth of the Gospel to children who are building character and lifelong memories. But the Colorado government is putting its dangerous agenda—that is losing popularity across the globe—ahead of its kids. We are urging the court to allow IdRaHaJe to operate as it has for over 75 years: as a Christian summer camp that accepts all campers without fear of being punished for its beliefs." The Colorado Department of Early Childhood said it could not comment on the pending litigation. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP There have been several other high-profile religious liberty cases against the state in recent years that have been heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the high court ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who was punished by the state after he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In another landmark case before the court in 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's anti-discrimination law cannot force a graphic designer to make wedding websites for same-sex marriages. Print Close URL
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rupert Lowe is right: we must be free to offend anyone… including Muslims
The MP Rupert Lowe, formerly of Reform, wrote this week that in Britain, 'We do not have blasphemy laws, and we must not have blasphemy laws. Burning the Quran is not a crime.' Is he sure? Put it like this. If Mr Lowe were to set fire to a copy of the Bible, I very much doubt he would be arrested. I do not recommend, however, that he tries the same experiment with the Quran. In all likelihood, being arrested would be the least of his problems. Still, good to see an MP standing up for free speech. But disturbing to see another MP immediately take him to task for it. On social media, Adnan Hussain – an independent who celebrated his election last July by declaring, 'This is for Gaza' – claimed that Mr Lowe really just wants to protect 'the right to offend Muslims'. He then called Mr Lowe's attitude 'deeply worrying', and told him: 'Free speech comes with limitations and protections.' Not when it comes to religious beliefs, it shouldn't. If we aren't free to criticise what other people think, we aren't free to criticise anything. Increasingly, though, it feels as if we're living in Mr Hussain's world, rather than Mr Lowe's. In a successful multi-ethnic society, newcomers integrate with their hosts. In Britain, however, it seems to be the other way around. The hosts are expected to integrate with the newcomers. To revere their holy books, bow to their customs, and at all costs avoid blaspheming against their prophets. Mr Lowe responded to Mr Hussain by writing: 'Yes, I do believe the right to offend Muslims must be protected. The right to offend anyone must be protected.' He's right. I just wish that our Government had the guts to agree. As usual, American liberals are getting Donald Trump all wrong. They're constantly wailing that the people he's appointed to high office are nutters and cranks. Well, yes. But that's the brilliance of his strategy. He's cleverly surrounding himself with shrieking crackpots so that, in comparison, he looks perfectly sane. At any rate, this theory would surely explain his controversial new pick for the role of Surgeon General. Because she's got to be his most eccentric appointee yet. Casey Means is a 'wellness influencer' who, in a newsletter to her followers last year, revealed the list of steps she had taken, at the age of 35, to help herself find a romantic partner. She 'set up a small meditation shrine in my house and prayed to photos of my ancestors asking for support in my personal journey'. She 'worked with a spiritual medium who helped me try to connect with my spirit guides for support and guidance'. And she 'did full moon ceremonies with grounded, powerful women' during which they all 'amplified each other's dreams'. Perhaps her most memorable move, however, was to start talking, 'literally out loud', to trees – 'letting them know I was ready for partnership, and asking them if they could help'. Frustratingly, she did not disclose what the trees said to her in reply. This is a great pity, as I would have been fascinated to know. I tried asking the oak in my garden whether it could enlighten me, but it maintained a strict silence. Perhaps, like doctors, trees are sworn to patient confidentiality. Still, whatever advice the trees gave her, it must have been sound, because, shortly afterwards, 'my dream man walked into my life'. This is wonderful to hear. Then again, if trees really do make such excellent advisers, Trump may be tempted to ditch Casey Means, and appoint a tree, instead. How many people in Britain are 'neurodivergent'? That is, have a neurological condition such as ADHD? Unfortunately, it's impossible to say. Not least because so many people nowadays simply 'self-identify' as neurodivergent – without seeking a diagnosis. And, according to Francesca Happé – a professor of cognitive neuroscience at King's College London – this has become so common that, in her view, 'We may well already be at a point where there are more neurodivergent self-identified people than neurotypical people.' Of course, we can't know for sure whether all these self-diagnoses are accurate. If they are, however, this is seismic news. After all, a majority is, by definition, the norm. So if a majority of British people are neurodivergent, that means they're actually neurotypical. Meanwhile, the people hitherto regarded as neurotypical are actually neurodivergent. I'll be particularly interested to see how this news is received by celebrities. Over the past couple of years, countless TV presenters, pop stars, actors and comedians have announced to the world that they're neurodivergent. But if being neurodivergent is the norm, there's no longer any reason to tell everyone. These celebrities might as well announce that they've got two legs, or come out as heterosexual. From now on, therefore, all the attention will go to those celebrities who don't have a neurological condition. I for one can't wait to read their exclusive tell-all interviews. 'Yes, it's true: I've just been diagnosed as not having ADHD. I must admit, I was shocked at first. But when I thought about it, it made so much sense. I always knew I was different…' 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Rupert Lowe is right: we must be free to offend anyone… including Muslims
The MP Rupert Lowe, formerly of Reform, wrote this week that in Britain, 'We do not have blasphemy laws, and we must not have blasphemy laws. Burning the Quran is not a crime.' Is he sure? Put it like this. If Mr Lowe were to set fire to a copy of the Bible, I very much doubt he would be arrested. I do not recommend, however, that he tries the same experiment with the Quran. In all likelihood, being arrested would be the least of his problems. Still, good to see an MP standing up for free speech. But disturbing to see another MP immediately take him to task for it. On social media, Adnan Hussain – an independent who celebrated his election last July by declaring, 'This is for Gaza' – claimed that Mr Lowe really just wants to protect 'the right to offend Muslims'. He then called Mr Lowe's attitude 'deeply worrying', and told him: 'Free speech comes with limitations and protections.' Not when it comes to religious beliefs, it shouldn't. If we aren't free to criticise what other people think, we aren't free to criticise anything. Increasingly, though, it feels as if we're living in Mr Hussain's world, rather than Mr Lowe's. In a successful multi-ethnic society, newcomers integrate with their hosts. In Britain, however, it seems to be the other way around. The hosts are expected to integrate with the newcomers. To revere their holy books, bow to their customs, and at all costs avoid blaspheming against their prophets. Mr Lowe responded to Mr Hussain by writing: 'Yes, I do believe the right to offend Muslims must be protected. The right to offend anyone must be protected.' He's right. I just wish that our Government had the guts to agree. Trump's oddest move yet As usual, American liberals are getting Donald Trump all wrong. They're constantly wailing that the people he's appointed to high office are nutters and cranks. Well, yes. But that's the brilliance of his strategy. He's cleverly surrounding himself with shrieking crackpots so that, in comparison, he looks perfectly sane. At any rate, this theory would surely explain his controversial new pick for the role of Surgeon General. Because she's got to be his most eccentric appointee yet. Casey Means is a 'wellness influencer' who, in a newsletter to her followers last year, revealed the list of steps she had taken, at the age of 35, to help herself find a romantic partner. She 'set up a small meditation shrine in my house and prayed to photos of my ancestors asking for support in my personal journey'. She 'worked with a spiritual medium who helped me try to connect with my spirit guides for support and guidance'. And she 'did full moon ceremonies with grounded, powerful women' during which they all 'amplified each other's dreams'. Perhaps her most memorable move, however, was to start talking, 'literally out loud', to trees – 'letting them know I was ready for partnership, and asking them if they could help'. Frustratingly, she did not disclose what the trees said to her in reply. This is a great pity, as I would have been fascinated to know. I tried asking the oak in my garden whether it could enlighten me, but it maintained a strict silence. Perhaps, like doctors, trees are sworn to patient confidentiality. Still, whatever advice the trees gave her, it must have been sound, because, shortly afterwards, 'my dream man walked into my life'. This is wonderful to hear. Then again, if trees really do make such excellent advisers, Trump may be tempted to ditch Casey Means, and appoint a tree, instead. The next big celebrity trend How many people in Britain are ' neurodivergent '? That is, have a neurological condition such as ADHD? Unfortunately, it's impossible to say. Not least because so many people nowadays simply 'self-identify' as neurodivergent – without seeking a diagnosis. And, according to Francesca Happé – a professor of cognitive neuroscience at King's College London – this has become so common that, in her view, 'We may well already be at a point where there are more neurodivergent self-identified people than neurotypical people.' Of course, we can't know for sure whether all these self-diagnoses are accurate. If they are, however, this is seismic news. After all, a majority is, by definition, the norm. So if a majority of British people are neurodivergent, that means they're actually neurotypical. Meanwhile, the people hitherto regarded as neurotypical are actually neurodivergent. I'll be particularly interested to see how this news is received by celebrities. Over the past couple of years, countless TV presenters, pop stars, actors and comedians have announced to the world that they're neurodivergent. But if being neurodivergent is the norm, there's no longer any reason to tell everyone. These celebrities might as well announce that they've got two legs, or come out as heterosexual. From now on, therefore, all the attention will go to those celebrities who don't have a neurological condition. I for one can't wait to read their exclusive tell-all interviews. 'Yes, it's true: I've just been diagnosed as not having ADHD. I must admit, I was shocked at first. But when I thought about it, it made so much sense. I always knew I was different…'
