A man set to appeal his conviction for burning a copy of the Quran will argue his actions were legitimate political debate protected under the right to freedom of speech.
Hamit Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June after setting fire to a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London.
The National Secular Society (NSS), which is joint-funding Coskun’s appeal with the Free Speech Union, described the conviction as a troubling repurposing of the public order act into “a form of modern blasphemy law”.
Coskun: “symbolic, non-violent expression of dissent” against theocracy in Turkey
At his appeal, due before Southwark Crown Court today, Coskun will argue that the criminal sanction represents a disproportionate interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Coskun says his “symbolic, non-violent expression of dissent” was motivated by concerns about increasing theocracy in Turkey. At his trial in June, Coskun said his protest was directed against the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for policies which he said are turning Turkey into a “base for radical Islamists”.
An atheist of Armenian and Kurdish heritage, Coskun has a long history of protesting against the Turkish government. In 1993, he was arrested in Turkey for being a member of the People’s Labour Party and tortured while in detention. Coskun’s brother was also murdered in 1997 for his activism.
Coskun is appealing his conviction under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which criminalises acting in a “disorderly” manner, or displaying material that is likely to cause “harassment, alarm, or distress” to others.
During the protest, Coskun was assailed by two onlookers. One, Moussa Kadri, attacked him with a knife but was spared prison at his sentencing last month. Convicting Coskun, Westminster Magistrates Court said the violent attack by Kadri was itself evidence that Coskun’s conduct was ‘disorderly’.
Coskun is also appealing the finding that his actions were “religiously aggravated”. He argues his conduct was not directed towards at any person or people, but towards religious and political institutions.
The appeal will be overseen by High Court judge Joel Bennathan. Only a handful of cases sent for appeal from the Magistrates’ Court have been overseen by a High Court judge.
Coskun was originally charged with intent to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” against “the religious institution of Islam”. Following interventions by the NSS, the Crown Prosecution Service said the wording of the charge was “incorrectly applied” and substituted a new charge.
Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008. Last year, the Government said it would not reintroduce blasphemy laws, after Tahir Ali MP asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.
NSS: Free speech must include right to offend
National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans said: “We’re supporting Hamit Coskun’s appeal not to endorse his actions, but to defend a vital principle – that free speech must include the right to offend.
“Coskun’s conviction repurposes public order laws in order to punish offensive expression – using them in a way that goes far beyond what Parliament ever intended, and which risks transforming them into a form of modern blasphemy law.
“Coskun’s peaceful protest caused no harm, yet he was convicted because others chose to react with violence. We believe this judgment sets the bar far too low for when the state can interfere with the right to free expression. If we allow offence – or the threat of violence – to determine the limits of expression, we hand extremists a veto over free speech itself.”