The prosecution of a man for burning a Quran in protest signals “a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes”, free speech campaigners have warned.
Hamit Coskun was today found guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of a religiously-aggravated public order offence, after he protested against Islamism outside the Turkish Consulate in February.
Coskun set fire to a Quran as part of the protest, which led to a man attacking him.
The National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, who have paid for his legal fees, will also pay his fine, which is £240 plus a £96 surcharge. They are also considering appealing the verdict.
Coskun was found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act which criminalises using words or behaving in a disorderly manner, or displaying material that is likely to harass, intimidate or distress others.
He was also found guilty under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which makes the public order offence “religiously aggravated”.
Coskun is an atheist of Armenian and Kurdish heritage with a long history of protesting against the Turkish government. He said his demonstration was a protest against the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for policies which he said are turning Turkey into a “base for radical Islamists”.
Since the demonstration, Coskun has reportedly faced death threats and has been moved to a safe house.
District Judge John McGarva said Coskun knew burning the Quran would be provocative, in part because in January Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika was assassinated in Sweden after burning Qurans in repeated public protests.
Coskun was originally charged with intent to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” against “the religious institution of Islam”. Following interventions by 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”.
Following the verdict, Coskun said the decision “is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression”.
NSS: “Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations”
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: “The outcome of this case is a significant blow to freedom of expression and signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.
“The Court’s acceptance of the prosecution’s assertion that Mr. Coskun’s actions stemmed from hostility towards Muslims raises serious concerns. It is essential to differentiate between prejudice or hatred aimed at individuals and hostility towards the ideologies of Islam or Islamism.
“The conviction of Mr. Coskun on the grounds that his actions were ‘likely’ to cause harassment, alarm, or distress suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws. 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.”
Media coverage: