- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 14,377
- Points
- 113
Hamit Coskun burned a Koran in what he said was a protest against Turkey’s president and an act of solidarity with an assassinated Iraqi refugee Credit: Ben Baker/PA
A man who burned a copy of the Koran has been charged with “harassing” Islam, which risks creating a “back door blasphemy law” in Britain, Robert Jenrick has warned.
The shadow justice secretary has claimed that the charge against Hamit Coskun, 50, for harassing the “religious institution of Islam” is a threat to free speech.
It is thought to be the first time that anyone facing such an offence has been prosecuted for harassing an “institution” in the form of Islam under the Public Order Act.
Lawyer Akua Reindorf said it was “plainly defective” because the “religious institution of Islam” was not a “person” for the purposes of the Act. The Crown Prosecution Service’s decision was “tantamount” to bringing a charge of blasphemy.
Ms Reindorf said that a conviction on the basis of available facts “would amount to the criminalisation of the act of desecrating a religious text in a public place”.
Blasphemy was abolished as a common law offence in England and Wales in 2008.
Mr Jenrick said: “Burning the Koran, like any religious text, is something that some people find very offensive and few people would condone, but that’s not the point. There are many things in our society that people find offensive, but that doesn’t make them criminal.
“Parliament abolished blasphemy almost 20 years ago. They were right to do so. It is not for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or courts to create a blasphemy law in this country by the back door.”
The National Secular Society has written to the CPS urging it to drop the prosecution. It said that the burning of the Koran was clearly an act of political protest – a type of expression protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.
Mr Coskun has said that his display was a protest against Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish president, and an act of solidarity with Salwan Momika – an Iraqi refugee who was assassinated in Sweden in January after burning Korans in repeated public protests.
Last year, the Government explicitly ruled out reintroducing blasphemy laws, after Tahir Ali, the Labour MP, asked Sir Keir Starmer to “commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.
In February, the Government also committed to protecting the right to free expression as part of efforts to challenge anti-Muslim bigotry, stating that “no blasphemy laws will be introduced by this Government”.
Stephen Evans, the chief executive of the National Secular Society, which is providing legal support to the defendant, said: “This prosecution is legally flawed and amounts to a dangerous reintroduction of blasphemy laws through the back door.
“We’ve raised concerns with the CPS, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General, urging an urgent reevaluation of these flawed and ludicrous charges.
“The burning of a Koran, however offensive to some, was in this instance a legitimate form of political protest, protected under human rights law. Proceeding with the charge would not only undermine free speech but also set a perilous precedent, effectively reintroducing blasphemy laws that were abolished in 2008.
“As the legal opinion we’ve obtained makes clear, these charges should be dropped to safeguard both the integrity of our legal system and to protect the fundamental right to freedom of expression.”
The particulars of the charge state that he, with “intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harassment, alarm or distress displayed some writing, sign or other visible representation which was threatening, abusive or insulting”.
A CPS spokesman said: “We charged Hamet Coskun on the basis that his actions caused harassment, alarm or distress – which is a criminal offence – and that this was motivated by hostility towards a religious or racial group.
“As part of our continuous review of ongoing cases, we concluded the wording of the charge was incorrectly applied and we have substituted a new charge to more accurately reflect the alleged offence.”
Last November, Tahir Ali, the Labour MP, asked Sir Keir Starmer whether he would introduce measures to prohibit “desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of Abrahamic religions”. Starmer’s response should have been straightforward. Burning a religious text is offensive to some and something most would condemn, but we do not have blasphemy laws in the UK.
However, astonishingly, Sir Keir declined to rule it out. Instead, he stated we must tackle “Islamophobia in all its forms” – suggesting burning the Koran was Islamophobic. The Prime Minister was completely incapable of making the crucial distinction between prejudice directed against Muslims as individuals and criticism or mockery of Islam as an ideology.
At the time, it prompted outrage. Free speech only exists if individuals are allowed to shock and offend, but this sounded like a creeping encroachment on that fundamental right. Yvette Cooper was dispatched to quickly “clarify” the Prime Minister’s remarks.
Labour may not be producing a new blasphemy law, although their plan for an Islamophobia definition could well be a Trojan horse for one if it is not drafted extremely carefully. But that may not matter if the law is interpreted to deliver a blasphemy law by the back door.
In February, a man was arrested for allegedly burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. He said that he was protesting against the policies of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish president, and what he described as Turkey being turned into a “base for radical Islamists”. At the time, he was arrested, and now he has been charged by the Crown Prosecution Service for “intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harassment, alarm or distress”.
The lawyers for the man in question say that the case is “plainly defective” because the Public Order Act only applies to people and, quite obviously, “the religious institution of Islam” is not a person. They argue that a conviction “would amount to the criminalisation of the act of desecrating a religious text in a public place”.
This case is of the highest importance. There’s a difference between things we don’t like as a society and things that we make criminal. In criminal law, it might be a public order offence to burn a religious text in some situations. For example, burning a Torah scroll at the doors of a synagogue. But burning any important religious or secular script in the middle of a normal street on a normal day ought not to be a public order offence. Offensive, perhaps. Criminal, no.
The challenge with the Koran in this context, over and above most other religious texts, is that many Muslims say they regard it as offensive wherever it is done. This poses a problem for us as a society.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/08/man-who-burned-koran-faces-charges-for-harassing-islam/
