A man who received a fine for setting fire to a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London has successfully appealed his conviction.
Hamit Coskun, aged 51, yelled derogatory remarks about Islam while brandishing the burning book in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13.
In June, he was convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a public order offense aggravated by religion and was penalized £240.
During the appeal at Southwark Crown Court on Friday, Mr. Justice Bennathan acknowledged that while the act of burning a Quran might be deeply distressing to many Muslims, the principle of freedom of expression encompasses the ability to express views that may offend, shock, or disturb others.
Originally from Turkey, Mr. Coskun stated that he came to the UK to freely discuss the threats posed by radical Islam, expressing his relief at the ruling which allows him to continue educating the British populace about his beliefs, despite various troubling trends.
During the protest, an individual from a nearby building attacked Mr. Coskun with a substantial knife, later telling authorities he was defending his faith. The assailant, Moussa Kadri, 59, received a suspended prison sentence last month.
The appeal hearing saw attendance from shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, who commented that, although he disagreed with Mr. Coskun’s actions, he did not view them as criminal.
Advocates asserted that Mr. Coskun’s conviction resembled the re-establishment of blasphemy laws, enacted indirectly through the judicial system. Blasphemy laws had been abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021.
In June, Mr. Coskun was found guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of engaging in disorderly behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to those within sight or hearing, driven by animosity toward a religious group, specifically Muslims, contravening the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act of 1986.
In delivering the verdict, District Judge John McGarva described Mr. Coskun’s actions as “provocative and taunting,” asserting that he harbored a “deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
The Free Speech Union indicated that the overturning of the conviction underscored that “anti-religious protests, no matter how offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.”
Lord Young of Acton, director of the union that supported Mr. Coskun’s legal defense, expressed delight at the ruling. He remarked, “If the original ruling had been upheld, it would have suggested to religious extremists nationwide that all they needed to do to impose their blasphemy laws was to react violently against those they accused of blasphemy, rendering such individuals guilty of inciting public disorder.”
“The Crown Court has instead conveyed the opposite message – that anti-religious protests, even if highly offensive to devout believers, must be permitted.”
The National Secular Society labeled the ruling “an important victory for freedom of expression,” characterizing Mr. Coskun’s demonstration as a legitimate form of political dissent.
