logo
Man convicted over Koran-burning in London says ruling is assault on free speech

Man convicted over Koran-burning in London says ruling is assault on free speech

Independent02-06-2025
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'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam.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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lenders deserve a pasting over the motor finance misselling scandal, says ALEX BRUMMER
Lenders deserve a pasting over the motor finance misselling scandal, says ALEX BRUMMER

Daily Mail​

time27 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Lenders deserve a pasting over the motor finance misselling scandal, says ALEX BRUMMER

The cloud of mistrust surrounding British finance will not be lifted by the Supreme Court ruling on motor finance. Modern history of the Square Mile is littered with examples of unwitting consumers being gulled into buying products they don't need and being cheated by finance providers. Pensions mis-selling and payment protection insurance come to mind. The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 may be a distant memory, but it was only two months ago that NatWest escaped from government ownership after an eye-popping £45.5billion taxpayer rescue. Indeed, the lingering costs of 2008 and the compensation culture it engendered are among the reasons why the UK's public finances are in the worst condition since the 1950s. Yet despite this, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves felt it was fine to go to the Mansion House and declare it time to place 'the boot on the neck' of the red tape of financial regulation. Quite the contrary. After scandals such as motor finance, the collapse of the Neil Woodford investment empire and the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scam, ever more vigilant enforcement is required if consumer confidence is to be nurtured. Tracing back victims of motor finance scandals to 2007 will be hard, and finding the data difficult. Yet it is unbecoming for Stephen Haddrill, who represents the Finance and Leasing Association, to shout foul and describe the proposal to pay out up to £18billion in compensation as 'completely impractical'. 'Caveat emptor' is fine as a mantra, but we shouldn't underestimate the deviousness of second-hand car merchants acting as agents for finance groups. I recall buying a second-hand VW and being told by the dealer that he didn't want cash because he would miss out on finance commissions. Investors in Lloyds Bank, Close Brothers et al yesterday enjoyed a relief rally at the expense of consumers treated unfairly. They should not escape retribution for unfitting behaviour. Private grief There is a prevalent view, fuelled by fee-hungry investment banks, that fending off private equity offers for FTSE-listed companies is impossible. Yet the bidding war which ended up with Primary Health Properties (PHP) fending off KKR and merging with rival Assura shows there are other choices. The outcome should be a plus for the NHS as it adopts Wes Streeting's desire to switch from big hospital provision of medical services to community-based health. PHP and Assura fended off private equity by fully engaging UK long-investors with 35 per cent of the votes, such as Schroders and Baillie Gifford. If the deal is approved next week, then it could free up to £300million for investment in updating and expanding facilities and building new health hubs. This is a more satisfactory outcome than some other recent private equity bids. Corporate ghouls Advent outbid rival KKR for Spectris, a vital British precision engineering firm which serves two critical industries: pharma and semiconductors. It is disappointing that no white knight offers emerged or that the Spectris board showed such little fight. Similarly, at a time when warehouses and data centres are all the rage, Warehouse REIT threw in its lot with Blackstone, reversing a decision to merge with Tritax Big Box. As customers of private equity-owned vet practices and dental surgeries would testify, unscrupulous owners rarely benefit the end-user. Lost love All hell has broken loose after Donald Trump fired the independent Bureau of Labour Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer because he didn't like 'rigged' jobs data which didn't suit his claims. The reality is that there is concern among some economists about the quality of data which showed that 258,000 fewer US jobs were created in May and June. Sound familiar? Here, the head of the Office for National Statistics Ian Diamond stepped down in May and UK Statistics Authority chair Robert Chote resigned in July. The departures came amid loud criticism from the Bank of England, among others, of poor labour force data. Lies, lies and damned statistics...

Brit investors face triple-whammy of taxes at Budget, Tories warn
Brit investors face triple-whammy of taxes at Budget, Tories warn

The Sun

time27 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Brit investors face triple-whammy of taxes at Budget, Tories warn

Last month, the Chancellor opened the door to painful tax hikes after a week of Labour chaos A TRIPLE-whammy of taxes could hit British investors at the Budget, the Tories warn. Measures such as removing a tax break on shares, scrapping the £500 tax-free dividend allowance and increasing dividend tax rates will dent confidence, they say. 2 'The Government needs to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors', warned Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride Credit: Getty An estimated five million people would be dragged into paying dividend tax if that allowance went. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said: 'The Government needs to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm.' Labour last night laughed off the jibes. A spokesman said: 'They have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget.' Last month, The Sun reported that Brits were bracing for higher taxes after Rachel Reeves warned Labour's welfare U-turns would come at a 'cost" - with experts saying the bill could hit £40 billion. The Chancellor opened the door to painful tax hikes after a week of Labour chaos, which saw her break down in the Commons and lose control of key spending plans. In her first public comments since the dramatic scenes in Parliament, Ms Reeves admitted the Government's retreat on welfare cuts had blown a multi-billion-pound hole in the public finances — and taxpayers would be left to fill the gap. Pressed on whether she would raise taxes, she said: 'Of course there is a cost to the welfare changes that parliament voted through this week and that will be reflected in the budget. 'But I'm also very, very clear that [the] stability that we've been able to return to the economy, which has enabled the Bank of England to cut interests rates four times, is only possible because of the fiscal discipline which is underpinned by the fiscal rules. "And we'll be sticking to those because they're absolutely vital for the living standards of working people and also the costs that businesses face.' Tax and spending package of €9.4bn to form basis of Budget 2026

Housekeeper wins unfair dismissal case against dead employer
Housekeeper wins unfair dismissal case against dead employer

The Sun

time27 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Housekeeper wins unfair dismissal case against dead employer

A HOUSEKEEPER has won a case for unfair dismissal — against her dead boss. Maridel Baltero was on holiday when fired in a text from pioneering teacher Andrea Greystoke in November 2023. 2 A tribunal heard she was offered four weeks pay as notice after working 30 hours a week for ten years at Mrs Greystoke's London home. Ms Baltero started proceedings in January 2024, but her 78-year-old boss died five months later. The hearing in central London was told that Mrs Greystoke — director and founder of independent Abercorn School — had prepared a response to Ms Baltero's allegations. In it she admitted most of the claims and cited 'personality difficulties'. Employment judge Lydia Watton ruled the sacking unfair. "I bear in mind that [Mrs Greystoke] was an individual acting as employer, and I cannot expect her to have a large HR function at her disposal", Judge Watton said. "However, on the evidence before me she did not carry out any investigation whatsoever, let alone a reasonable one. "[Ms Baltero] was not asked about her performance, nor were the issues discussed with her. "I find that [Mrs Greystoke] could have reasonably been expected to wait longer before dismissing [Ms Baltero], at least until she had some form of consultation or performance management with [her]. "I do not find that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. I lost 'everything' when UC stopped my £4.3k-month payment... now I've been sacked from my new job "[Mrs Greystoke] had not made any attempt to find out if there were any reasons for the allegedly poor performance, or to warn [Ms Baltero]." Compensation from Mrs Greystoke's estate will be set later. 2

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store