Pickthall defends the legal right to burn the Qur’an or any religious text

The verdict in favour of Hamit Coskun’s appeal is the right decision; the principle of equal treatment for all religions should be upheld.

The 51-year-old of Kurdish and Armenian heritage, born in Turkey, was convicted in June at Westminster Magistrate’s Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour, contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986. However, on 10th October, Mr Justice Bennathan overturned the conviction, noting that the right to freedom of expression “must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb”.

On 13th February, he was attacked while burning a Qur’an outside the Turkish consulate in London and shouting abusive comments about Islam. Mr Coskun had stated that he came to the UK to be able to speak freely about the “dangers of radical Islam”. Mr Coskun’s appeal was funded by free speech campaigners and received the support of Conservative MP, Robert Jenrick, who has recently been in hot water for his comments on integration in the Handsworth neighbourhood of Birmingham.

While Mr Coskun’s actions were distasteful and offensive to many, Pickthall House is pleased to see that the principle of free speech underpinning Britain’s liberal tradition of freedom of religion has been upheld. Pickthall House hopes that such a principle and judgement will be applied consistently to practitioners and critics of all religions and none in the United Kingdom. As Mr Justice Bennathan stated at Southwark Crown Court yesterday: “We live in a liberal democracy. One of the previous rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so.”

While blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021, some commentators including the aforementioned free speech campaign groups have shown alarm at the Labour government’s proposed definition of Islamophobia, considering it the first step towards a pro-Islam blasphemy law. This is misleading, however, as Pickthall House notes that the proposed Islamophobia definition is not legally binding and would not prohibit any behaviour that is currently legal. Pickthall House continues to call for any government definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred to protect free speech when formulated as the Government has promised it will.