At Westminster Magistrates’ Court last week, a judge determined that Hamit Coskun, aged 50, had committed a religiously aggravated public order offence by burning a Koran outside a Turkish consulate. The court was told that on February 13, in Knightsbridge, London, Coskun held the flaming book aloft while shouting “f*** Islam,” “Islam is religion of terrorism,” and “Koran is burning.”
District Judge John McGarva found Coskun guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offense, specifically for engaging in disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.” This behaviour, the judge concluded, was motivated by “hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam,” in contravention of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
In delivering his verdict, District Judge McGarva explicitly stated: “Your actions in burning the Koran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.”
Coskun’s conviction under the Public Order Act has been described as “deeply disappointing” by the Free Speech Union (FSU), one of his prominent supporters. A spokesperson for the FSU asserted that “Everyone should be able to exercise their rights to protest peacefully and to freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or upsetting it may be to some people.”
The Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS) have declared their intention to appeal this verdict, stating they will “keep on appealing it until it’s overturned. If that means taking it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, we will do so.” The spokesperson further elaborated that while religious tolerance is a crucial British value, “it doesn’t require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.” On the contrary, they argued, it necessitates that “people of faith tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.”
The National Secular Society, which, along with the Free Speech Union, covered Coskun’s legal expenses, expressed concern that the judgment “jeopardises” free expression. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, commented that “The outcome of this case is a significant blow to freedom of expression and signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.”
This is despite PM Sir Keir Starmer defending a protester who defaced the US flag in 2001, saying that this was free speech and not a crime.
Coskun had written on social media he was protesting the “Islamist government” of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who had “made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime”. The defendant, an atheist, believes he was protesting peacefully, and that burning the Koran was a right under his freedom of expression, the court had heard.
The defence had said Hamit Coskun should be protected to “express his personal criticism of Turkey and its stance on Islam” – and argued a conviction would effectively revive blasphemy laws.The National Secular Society (NSS), which paid his legal fees jointly with the Free Speech Union (FSU), called it a “significant blow to freedom of expression”. In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said the decision would “deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression”. Coskun vowed to “continue to campaign against the threat of Islam”.