‘In a liberal democracy such as ours, the right to offend is precious’: Judge spells out importance of free speech as he overturns conviction of man who burnt the Koran
Campaigners hailed a major victory for freedom of expression yesterday as they saw the conviction of a man who burned a Quran overturned.
51-year-old Hamit Coşkun shouted ‘fuck Islam’ while setting fire to the text in front of the Turkish Consulate in London in February.
After being convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offense and fined £240 in June, he appealed and a judge ruled Mr Coşkun was now ‘entitled to offend’.
His Honor Judge Bennathan told Southwark Crown Court: ‘Burning a Quran can be an act that many Muslims find deeply distressing and offensive.
‘But criminal law is not a mechanism aimed at preventing people from being upset. We live in a liberal democracy. One of the most valuable rights granted to us is the ability to express our own opinions without state intervention.
‘The price we pay for this is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if it upsets, offends or shocks us.’
Mr Coşkun said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan burned the Quran to highlight how his constitutionally secular government had become an ‘Islamist regime’.
However, during his protest, he was attacked with a knife by 59-year-old Moussa Kadri, who later told the police that he was protecting his religion.
Campaigners hailed a major victory for freedom of expression yesterday as a man (pictured) who burned a Quran saw his conviction overturned
Hamit Coşkun, 51, shouted “Fuck Islam” as he set the text on fire in front of the Turkish Consulate in London in February.
Mr Justice Bennathan (pictured) told Southwark Crown Court: ‘Criminal law is not a mechanism intended to prevent people from getting upset.’
Yesterday, the Free Speech Union said the decision sent the message that ‘anti-religious protests should be tolerated, even if they are offensive to true believers’.
Lord Young, director of the union that helped fund Mr Coskun’s legal case, said: ‘If the decision had been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to fundamentalists that all they had to do to enforce their blasphemy laws was to violently attack the heretic, thus making him guilty of disturbing public order.’
Stephen Evans, chairman of the National Secular Society, added: ‘Mr Coskun’s protest was a lawful act of political dissent.
‘There is no need to turn a blind eye to the nature of the show; The important thing is that this is not a crime.’
Yesterday, the charity Humanists UK said it was ‘delighted’ and ‘relieved’ by the decision to overturn the conviction.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said that although he did not accept what Coşkun did, he did not think ‘this was a crime’.
He, along with fellow campaigners, argued that the investigation into Mr Coşkun was an attempt to bring back the blasphemy law ‘through the back door’.
Coşkun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian, said in a statement following the decision: ‘Despite many disturbing developments, I reassure myself that I will now be free to educate the British public about my beliefs.’
