Conviction of Coskun under Islamic blasphemy laws affirmed
In the bustling streets of London, a contentious event unfolded: a man named Hamit Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence for setting fire to a Quran outside the Turkish consulate. Coskun's actions, he explained, were political, a protest against the "Islamist government of Erdogan, which has transformed Turkey into a haven for radical Islamists."
Coskun, a 50-year-old of Armenian and Kurdish descent, has personal reasons for his disdain. Born and raised in Turkey, he and his family have suffered persecution at the hands of Islamists, including his mother's relatives who were amongst the victims in the Armenian Genocide of 1915.
As Coskun calmly conducted his one-man protest, a man emerged from nearby buildings. Upon understanding the situation, he warned Coskun, "I'm going to kill you." Armed with a weapon, he attacked Coskun while shouting, "Burning the Quran? It's my religion! You don't burn the Quran!"
The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) took advantage of this violent response to prosecute Coskun, claiming that his actions posed a real threat to public order. This, critics argue, is a classic instance of victim blaming.
The Public Order Act grants police sweeping powers. Any conduct deemed 'likely' to cause someone "harassment, alarm or distress" can be punishable, enabling public order laws to serve as a proxy for blasphemy laws. This approach endangers freedom of expression by incentivizing violent responses to suppress offensive views.
Coskun's case is a grim reminder that establishing a right not to be offended spells the death knell for free expression. Additionally, the prosecution failed to distinguish between the target of Coskun's protest—Islam—and its followers—Muslims. The prosecution maintained that Coskun's actions were motivated by hostility towards Muslims, a conflation that distorts the critical distinction between prejudice or hatred directed at Muslims as individuals and robust criticism of Islam or Islamism as ideologies.
Christopher Hitchens once asserted that the term "Islamophobia" was created to "suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible 'message.'" Coskun's case is merely the latest example of this strategic blurring of lines. Despite Coskun repeatedly clarifying that his issue lies with radical Islam, not Muslims, a few careless comments during a police interview led the judge to deem his protest fuelled by a "deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers."
Warnings of a resurgence of blasphemy laws are not mere hyperbole. Last year, Labour backbencher Tahir Ali proposed measures to prohibit the desecration of religious texts and prophets of the Abrahamic religions in Parliament. The government responded by ruling out any introduction of blasphemy laws. However, the troublesome application of public order laws in Coskun's case demonstrates how the UK has stealthily edged towards a prohibition on blasphemy.
Curiously, the CPS initially charged Hamit with intent to "harass, alarm, or distress" the religious institution of Islam. This charge was dropped after the National Secular Society intervened, exposing the absurdity of such an alleged non-crime. Desecration of a Quran is a violation of Islamic law, and the initial charge suggests an intent to suppress contentious expression in favor of appeasing those most easily offended, possibly even imposing sharia principles on protests.
In light of Coskun's trial, organizations like the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union have taken it upon themselves to fund his legal fees, ensuring proper representation. A successful conviction in this case could effectively criminalize damaging a Quran in public, pushing us dangerously close to a ban on blasphemy. While Coskun's actions may be provocative and offensive to many, they should not be considered criminal unless they result in actual harm. The outcome of this case represents a disquieting capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.
It's important to note that the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union do not condone book-burning, regardless of their content. However, burning a Quran in public may be considered offensive, but it should not be considered criminal unless it causes actual harm or incites violence. The current situation represents a worrying erosion of a cherished right to critically engage with religious texts.
- The ongoing debate about free speech and blasphemy law was highlighted in the case of Hamit Coskun, who was prosecuted for setting fire to a Quran in London.
- Critics argue that Coskun's case is a prime example of victim blaming, as his actions were politically motivated and the violent response from a bystander was used to prosecute him.
- The Public Order Act, which can penalize conduct 'likely' to cause 'harassment, alarm or distress', has been criticized for being used as a proxy for blasphemy laws, potentially endangering freedom of expression.
- The National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, who are supporting Coskun's legal proceedings, warn of a resurgence of blasphemy laws, citing the UK's troubling application of public order laws in this case.
