An appeal against a man’s conviction for burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London has been successful.
On February 13, 51-year-old Hamit Coskun raised the burning book in the air while yelling derogatory remarks about Islam in Knightsbridge’s Rutland Gardens.
He was fined £240 after being found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June.
While burning a Quran may be something that “many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive,” Mr. Justice Bennathan stated at Southwark Crown Court on Friday that the right to freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock, or disturb.”
Attack with a knife
We live in a liberal democracy,” the judge continued. One of the most valuable liberties we have is the freedom to read, hear, and think about ideas without interference from the government.
“The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.”
“I am reassured that – despite many troubling developments – I will now be free to educate the British public about my beliefs,” Mr. Coskun, who was born in Turkey, said, adding that he had come to England “to be able to speak freely about the dangers of radical Islam.”
When Mr. Coskun was protesting the burning of the Quran, a man came out of a building nearby and stabbed him with a big knife. He subsequently told authorities that he was defending his faith. Last month, the 59-year-old attacker, Moussa Kadri, received a suspended jail sentence.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick attended Mr. Coskun’s appeal hearing and stated that although he disagreed with Mr. Coskun’s actions, he did not think they constituted a crime.
Mr. Coskun’s conviction, according to campaigners, was similar to the reintroduction of blasphemy legislation “by the back door, inadvertently, by our court service.”
Scotland repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021, while England and Wales did the same in 2008.
Based on “hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam,” Mr. Coskin was found guilty in June of a religiously aggravated public order offense at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for engaging in disorderly behavior “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress.” This was in violation of both section five of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
District Judge John McGarva found him guilty, stating that Mr. Coskun’s actions were “provocative and taunting” and that “you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
The conviction’s overturning, according to the Free Speech Union, sends a message that “anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.”
“We’re thrilled,” said Lord Young of Acton, director of the union that provided financial support for Mr. Coskun’s legal defense.
If the verdict had been upheld, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists across the nation that all they would have to do to enforce their blasphemy regulations would be to attack the blasphemer physically, which would have made them guilty of causing public disturbance.
“Instead, the crown court has sent the opposite message – that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.”
The National Secular Society called Mr. Coskun’s protest a “lawful act of political dissent” and declared the ruling to be “an important victory for freedom of expression.”
