
Blasphemy laws against Islam are here, but nobody in Westminster will admit it
On Monday, Hamit Coskun was convicted of a public order offence for burning his own copy of the Quran in a peaceful protest outside the Turkish consulate. He was interrupted when an angry member of the public slashed at him with a knife and a passing delivery man kicked him while he lay on the floor. Channelling Titania in his ruling, District Judge John McGarva claimed that Coskun's conduct was proven to be disorderly 'by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people'.
While reading the judgment in this case, those of us who still care about free speech will hear multiple alarm bells clanging all at once. Leaving aside the sinister suggestion that a victim of violence is to blame for being attacked, the judge also stated that 'the defendant positioned himself outside the Turkish embassy, a place where he must have known there would be Muslims'. Given that Coskun had said that his protest was against 'the Islamist Government of Erdogan who has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', it is difficult to imagine a more suitable location.
Coskun's alleged crime is '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'. That his style of protest had the potential to cause offence is beyond doubt, with his cries of 'Quran is burning' and 'f--- Islam'. But if provocative language is now illega l, then one wonders how the major protests we've seen on the streets of London this year haven't all culminated in mass arrests.
We need to be honest about what this conviction represents: blasphemy law by the back door. The creed of multiculturalism is a keystone of the intersectional ideology that has infected so many of our major institutions. The police and the judiciary are far from immune, which is presumably why, in the absence of authentic blasphemy codes, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had attempted to invent one of its own. The CPS had originally charged Coskun with intent to cause 'harassment, alarm or distress' against 'the religious institution of Islam'. It was eventually forced to change the wording to comply with the law.
This is a standard symptom of ideological capture. The trans charity Stonewall, for instance, has been found to have misrepresented the Equality Act as it 'would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is'. The College of Policing – the body responsible for the training of officers in England and Wales – has ignored demands from successive home secretaries to stop the recording of 'non-crime hate incidents', and has even shirked a ruling from the High Court that found the practice to be a clear infringement on free speech.
The problems of two-tier justice and the ongoing state encroachment on free speech will not disappear until we tackle the two major sources of the problem. The first is the ideological bias that has become embedded in the police and the CPS. The second is the various 'hate speech' laws on the statue books that no government has yet had the courage to repeal. Why are people still being prosecuted for 'grossly offensive' comments, when such a notion is hopelessly subjective and impossible to define? Why are there proscriptions against the causing of 'alarm' or 'distress', when these are inevitable aspects of life? Why, for that matter, is 'hate' considered illegal at all? The state is seemingly under the delusion that it can legislate away our hardwired human emotions.
Ultimately, no citizen should be arrested for a peaceful protest in which they burn their own book. That it was a copy of the Quran should be beside the point. In a free society, no belief-system should be exempt from criticism, ridicule and, yes, hatred. The spread of ideology through our public institutions, and the ongoing failure of our politicians to acknowledge that it is happening at all, has meant that the principle of equality under the law is now subordinated to group identity and the risk of causing offence. For those of us who still believe in freedom, this situation is no longer tolerable.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Two men charged after asylum hotel protest in Diss
Two men have been charged with public order offences following a protest outside a hotel housing asylum-seeking families. They were arrested on Saturday after police reviewed footage from both sides of the protest in Diss, Norfolk on Monday. James Harvey, 22, of Linden Drive in Hethersett was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence. Luke Sharman, 23, of Harcourt Close, Norwich was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence and possession of cannabis. Both were bailed and are due at Norwich Magistrates' Court on 16 September. About 150 protesters gathered outside the hotel, which is currently housing asylum-seeking holding signs that read "refugees welcome" also attended. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.


Telegraph
20 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Online Safety Act is an assault on freedom
They told us it was about protecting children. That's how they always do it. Wrap tyranny in the warm fuzz of 'safety', and hope nobody reads the fine print. But let me be clear: the Online Safety Act is not about protecting children. It is a Trojan horse for the biggest assault on free speech in modern British history. And unless we act, it will drag our country into a digital surveillance state worthy of Communist China. This is not hyperbole. This is a blunt reality. Section 179 of the act makes it a criminal offence to say something false that causes 'non-trivial psychological harm'. That's not protecting kids from predators. That's criminalising humour, satire, political dissent and angry tweets. Under this definition, a cutting meme, a sarcastic TikTok or a joke about a government minister could land you in court. This is not a safety law. It's a censorship law. Even George Orwell couldn't scarcely have imagined something so sweeping, so vague and so open to abuse. But it gets worse. Section 44 gives a single government minister the power to rewrite the censorship rules without Parliament. Let that sink in. A single person can direct Ofcom to impose new censorship obligations on the internet, and platforms will be legally forced to comply. No vote. No debate. Just diktat. This is the death knell of democracy. It's already happening. Content critical of government immigration policy – including videos of public protests outside migrant hotels – is quietly being censored from social media. Who can blame them? The act threatens them with fines of up to 10 per cent of global turnover and even criminal liability for their staff if they don't suppress content the Government deems 'harmful'. Faced with that, who wouldn't over-block? That's precisely the perverse incentive the act aims to create. This is not just an attack on public discourse, it's an attack on private conversations too. The act includes your private messages. WhatsApp and Signal have warned that the UK Government is demanding access to encrypted chats. That's right: the Government wants to read your DMs. And if tech companies don't build a back door, they face the full weight of the law. The Government claims it will hold off on this part, 'for now'. Don't be fooled. The Tories put this power on the books for a reason – they intend to use it. Today, they say it's for child safety. Tomorrow, it'll be about 'disinformation' or 'extremism' – code for anyone who challenges the failed policies of the political elite. Even more chilling is the mandatory ID scanning this law introduces. Not just for porn, but for regular social media too. If you're under 18, you'll be blocked from seeing 'harmful' content – which, in practice, means anything critical of the Government. This is especially sinister when you realise that 16- and 17-year-olds are being given the vote. They are being sent to the polls, but not allowed to see a political message the Government dislikes. And here's the final irony: this act won't even protect children. Anyone remotely tech-savvy – and let's be honest, most teenagers are – will use VPNs to get around the filters. Some will end up in the depths of the dark web, where the greatest dangers lie. So we get a censored internet, less privacy and no improvement in safety. This dystopian mess didn't come from Labour – though don't expect Starmer to repeal it. No, it was cooked up by the Tories. The same Tories who pretend to champion free speech and civil liberties when it suits them. Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman – both now trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of British values – voted for this authoritarian legislation without question. No objections. No concern. In many ways this is the most insidious form of politician. One that says what we want to hear, and then sells us all out when it counts. The truth is this: the Online Safety Act is a disgrace to our democracy. It turns Britain into a state where truth is whatever the Government says it is. Where protest is suppressed, dissent is squashed, and your private thoughts are no longer private. Reform UK is the only political force willing to speak out against this. We believe in free speech, even when it's uncomfortable. We believe the role of government is to protect citizens – not to police their opinions. And we believe in repealing this dangerous act in full. Britain must remain a country where people can speak their minds without fear. Where satire thrives. Where criticism of the powerful is not just allowed, but encouraged. Clamping down on the free speech of British people will not succeed. Reform and Nigel Farage will see to that.


Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer 'open to reuniting with former Manchester United star' as the Besiktas boss considers handing the 24-year-old a career lifeline
Besiktas manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is reportedly debating a move for a former Manchester United star. After a glittering playing career at Old Trafford that saw him etch his name in club folklore, Solskjaer went on to spent nearly three years in the hot seat at Old Trafford as manager between 2018 and 2021. In January, Solskjaer took his first managerial position since being sacked by United and led Besiktas to a fourth-place finish in the Turkish Super Lig. And as he prepares for his first full campaign in charge of the Black Eagles, Solskjaer is said to be eyeing a former Man United player to help shore up his defence. According to a report from The Sun, the Norwegian is open to a move for United academy graduate and former England youth international, Brandon Williams. Williams thrived under Solskjaer's leadership at Old Trafford, and was handed his senior debut by the Champions League winner in September 2019. The 24-year-old would go on to make 36 appearances in all competitions in what appeared to a breakout campaign for the latest Carrington graduate tipped for success in the game. However, Williams subsequently found first team opportunities difficult to come by and was sent out on loan with spells East Anglia with both Norwich and Ipswich. During the latter of the two, Williams fell out of favour at a promotion-chasing Tractor Boys side under then-boss Kieran McKenna as his off-field problems began to come to the fore. In May Williams was handed a 14-month suspended jail sentence for dangerous driving. The defender had been 'driving erratically' in his Audi A3 before hitting a Ford Fiesta and careering into the central reservation of the A34 in Cheshire at almost 100mph. Williams admitted he had been trying to show off to a female passenger who was sitting next to him, and a witness is said to have filmed him with a balloon by his mouth. Prosecutors said it was 'fortunate' nobody was seriously injured or killed. Judge Lamb, sitting in the Chester Crown Court, told Williams 'there was no reason for driving in the way you did' but said there was 'strong personal mitigation' after committing the offence at a time of depression. Williams, who had been partying shortly before the crash, was told he had been 'stupid' and earned 'too much too soon'.