EXCLUSIVE Man convicted of burning Koran and shouting 'f*** islam' outside Turkish embassy admits he is 'very worried' that he may now end up being killed
Hamit Coskun, 50, was ordered to pay £240 and a statutory £96 surcharge on Monday after screaming 'Koran is burning' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism' while holding a flaming copy of the religious Islamic text above his head, in a controversial demonstration earlier this year.
During his protest - which took place on February 13 in Knightsbridge - he was attacked by a man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who was allegedly holding a knife.
The man then spat at and kicked Mr Coskun.
Two days later on February 15 Mr Coskun's home was broken into by two Iraqi men who threatened him with an ashtray and a knife.
Following this, Mr Coskun was placed under police protection for two days and was then forced to flee the city he was living in.
Since then Mr Coskun has received scores of abusive messages and death threats which have left him fearing for his life.
Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail, Turkish born Mr Coskun, who is half Armenian and half Kurdish, said: 'My social media accounts and phonebook are full of death threats from [people based in] cities like London and Birmingham.
Hamit Coskun leaving Westminster Magistrates' Court, central London, where he was sentenced to a £240 fine, with a statutory surcharge of £96 after he was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour when a Koran was burnt outside the Turkish consulate in London on February 13
'Like everyone else, I am afraid of being killed [and] I am very worried because I know that I may face security risks.
'This is the reality of the "religion" we call Islam.
'It does not respect different beliefs and cultures, it does not recognize the right to life.
'But I am not a coward.
'I am ready to pay the price.'
Social media posts sent to Mr Coskun and seen by the Daily Mail include one that states: 'You should sacrifice yourself to Koran. You will die'.
Another says: 'Hail to the courageous man who will make your corpse lie down on the ground.'
Mr Coskun, a committed atheist, was forced to flee his home country of Turkey two and a half years ago. He is currently seeking asylum in the UK.
When asked whether he felt protected in Britain Mr Coskun admitted: 'What really worries and upsets me is the attitude of the police [because] unfortunately, the police don't care.
'After returning from London on February 15, I was attacked by two Iraqi Muslims in Derby.
'Despite being arrested, they were released within a day [so] I had to change my address for security reasons.
'I am not [currently] under police protection and [when] I told them I felt unsafe they said there was nothing they could do.'
Earlier this week politicians, including opposition leader Kemi Badenoch, as well as leading free speech campaigners slammed the conviction of Mr Coskun warning that the ruling was a blasphemy law by the back door.
Defiant, Mr Coskun has said that he plans to appeal the decision - with the help of the National Secular Society [NSS] and the Free Speech Union [FSU] who are covering his legal fees.
He said: 'I am grateful to the NSS and FSU, who have stood by me on this issue and have supported me unconditionally.
'The court ruling is an unjust decision. The ruling will only please and satisfy Islamists. They are trying to clamp down on freedom of expression.'
'I am an activist. I criticize Islam. I think that Islam poses a threat to the whole world.
'[While protesting] I remain within democratic measures.
'I do not interfere with anyone. This is my democratic right [and] I will continue my struggle.
'This does not necessarily mean burning the Quran [but] I will use my right to protest wherever Islamists pose a threat.
'I do not intend to harm or disturb anyone. I am trying to raise awareness in society about the concept of Islamic invasion and threat.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police officers detained after smacking son win appeal after ‘unlawful' arrests
Two married police officers who were arrested after one of them smacked their teenage son have won a High Court battle over claims they were unlawfully detained. The officers, who both serve with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested by Surrey Police in March 2019 after the wife gave her son what she described as a 'light smack on the left cheek' after he misbehaved. They sued Surrey Police after being told they would face no further action, claiming their detention was unlawful as it was unnecessary. The couple, who have three children, had their claims dismissed following a trial last year and appealed against the decision at the High Court earlier this month. In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Bourne overturned the decision. He said: 'In my judgment, on a proper analysis of the evidence at trial, the police did not show that there was an objective basis for the belief that it was necessary to arrest either claimant.' The judge said in a 30-page ruling that at the time of the incident, the couple's son, referred to as ABD, had 'an unfortunate history of challenging behaviour' and had begun attending a youth centre to access mental health services. The couple cancelled ABD's birthday party in March 2019 after he misbehaved, causing him to go to his room, where he 'kicked things around'. This led his mother to smack her son while his father was asleep, which she said 'was not hard and did not cause any injury or leave any mark'. ABD attended the youth centre the following day and told staff that he had been assaulted by his mother and that his father had done nothing to stop it. Despite offering to be interviewed voluntarily, both parents were arrested and detained for more than seven hours. ABD returned to the family home the following day, with police deeming that the children were not at risk of harm and telling the couple that they would face no further action three days after their arrest. Following a five-day trial at Guildford County Court, a judge dismissed their legal claims, finding that police 'reasonably believed' that their arrests were necessary 'to protect a child or children from the person in question and to enable a prompt and effective investigation'. The judge also ordered the couple to pay 70 per cent of the force's legal costs. At a hearing in London on July 2, barristers for the couple told the High Court that the judge 'erred' by finding that the arrests were 'objectively reasonable' as both parents had offered to give voluntary interviews. In his ruling, Mr Justice Bourne said he was 'unable to agree' with the trial judge's finding that there was a 'rational basis' for officers to conclude that voluntary interviews were not an option. He said: 'In the present case, no reason has been identified which actually explains why voluntary interviews were not a viable alternative.' He continued: 'None of this means that police officers are entitled to special treatment when they find themselves suspected of an offence. 'But the police must assess the circumstances and make rational decisions as to whether coercive measures are needed or not.' He added: 'Merely referring to the need to protect children and to protect the integrity of the investigation was not and is not enough. 'It follows that the arrests were unlawful and the claims should have succeeded.'
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Social media posts by Laurence Fox calling two people paedophiles would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, Court of Appeal hears
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two men as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation. Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets, which led to the libel claims. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the £180,000 High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing today. Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife Elizabeth, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony. The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying "I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way." Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The "paedophile" tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday. During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims. During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages. She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.' During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'. However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice. Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result. He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.' Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!' Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account. During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.' The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already. 'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.' Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Counter terror police probe passenger 'shouting Allahu Akbar after making bomb threat' on packed plane - as man, 41, is charged
A man has been charged after making an alleged bomb threat on a packed passenger plane yesterday. Counter terror police are probing a video posted on social media showing a passenger claim to have a bomb before shouting 'Allahu Akbar' in front of terrified onlookers. The incident took place on an easyJet flight from London Luton Airport to Glasgow on Sunday morning. Officers raced to meet the plane on arrival in Scotland where a man was arrested. Today, police confirmed that a 41-year-old has been charged and will appear at Paisley Sheriff Court later. They said in a statement: 'We believe the incident to be contained and that nobody else was involved. 'We are aware of videos circulating online and these are being assessed by counter terrorism officers.' In one of the videos, a man could be seen shouting: 'Stop the plane. Find the bomb on the plane. Death to America. Death to Trump.' He was then heard shouting 'Allahu Akbar' three times - a phrase which means 'God is the greatest' in Arabic. A hero passenger from row 21 then tackled the man to the ground and held him on the floor. Another man sat on top of him to restrain him and said: 'Sit down don't move.' In another clip, people could be heard nervously asking 'who is he with?', 'does he have his phone?'. The cabin crew could be heard announcing that the plane would be 'landing very shortly'. Passengers asked the man if he had anything in his bag, asking 'do you have a bomb?'. They then asked the man if he had been drinking or taking drugs. He was quizzed by two men, with one asking: 'Why did you say you wanted to bomb this plane?' The passengers managed to locate the man's bag and asked him if he had anything in his pockets. Another panicked woman said: 'Check everywhere, not just his pockets, check his body.' They took his wallet and managed to find his ID, as a woman was heard crying as she took an emotional phone call with a loved one. Upon landing in Glasgow, police were caught on video arresting the man, while he remained lying down in the aisle of the plane. The officer told the man: 'You're calm now, are you going to be calm when I stand you up.' The man replied: 'I'm calm now.' As he was escorted off the plane, the man asked for his 'phone and wallet', which received a cold response from passengers who told him to 'f*** off'. Some managed to find some humour and laughed at the man's request, with one heard saying 'it is like a comedy sketch'. Yesterday, a spokesperson for easyJet said: 'Flight EZY609 from Luton to Glasgow this morning was met by police on arrival in Glasgow, where they boarded the aircraft and removed a passenger due to their behaviour onboard. 'easyJet's crew are trained to assess all situations and act quickly and appropriately to ensure that the safety of the flight and other customers are not compromised at any time. 'The safety and wellbeing of our customers and crew is always easyJet's highest priority.'
