Appeal to begin in case of man convicted over Koran-burning in London

A man convicted after burning a Koran in London is to have his appeal heard amid warnings from free speech campaigners that the case was an attempt to bring back blasphemy law.

Hamit Coskun was found guilty having shouted “f*** Islam”, “Islam is religion of terrorism” and “Koran is burning” while holding the flaming religious text aloft outside the Turkish consulate in London in February.

He was convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June 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.

Coskun insisted 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”.

The judge described Coskun, who is an atheist, as someone with 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”.

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 case prompted campaigners and some politicians to argue it was an attempt to bring back blasphemy law, but the Government stated in the wake of the ruling that there are no blasphemy laws in England nor are there any plans to introduce any.

Coskun’s legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU).

The NSS said Coskun’s lawyers will argue that the criminal sanction represents a disproportionate interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights, and that his conduct was not directed towards any person or people, but towards religious and political institutions.

NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: “We’re supporting Hamit Coskun’s appeal not to endorse his actions, but to defend a vital principle – that free speech must include the right to offend.

“Coskun’s conviction repurposes public order laws in order to punish offensive expression – using them in a way that goes far beyond what Parliament ever intended, and which risks transforming them into a form of modern blasphemy law.

“Coskun’s peaceful protest caused no harm, yet he was convicted because others chose to react with violence. We believe this judgment sets the bar far too low for when the state can interfere with the right to free expression.

“If we allow offence – or the threat of violence – to determine the limits of expression, we hand extremists a veto over free speech itself.”

Humanists UK said the initial court ruling “meant that the bar to successful prosecutions was set too low and that this could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression”, adding that their organisation campaigns for the “fullest possible protection for freedom of expression in law limited only to protect against harm to others”.

The appeal hearing at Southwark Crown Court in London is listed to begin on Thursday and is expected to last two days.