Hamit Coskun, a Turkish refugee, has been sentenced under section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing distress by burning a copy of the Quran outside of a Turkish embassy, in protest of the Turkish government’s political violence and the abandonment of secularism in favour of radical Islam.
While burning the book he yelled “Islam is religion of terror”, “fuck Islam”, and “Quran is burning”. Coskun was found guilty by District Judge John McGarva, who, argued that “the defendant has a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers”, and while the burning of the book isn’t necessarily disorderly, how and when he chose to do it made it so. A fine was issued of £336 including a statutory surcharge.
The Spectator published an article declaring there is now de facto blasphemy laws in the UK. The BBC focused on the provocative nature of Coskun’s actions, and the Free Speech Union (FSU) said “[e]veryone should be able to exercise their rights to protest peacefully, and to freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or upsetting it may be to some people.” As always with these cases, some have come out condemning the judgment and others have argued that hate speech isn’t free speech.
Now, you might say that what Coskun did isn’t very nice and was known to him that it would cause distress and disorder. But are we obliged to be nice and never do what we know upsets others? Must our criticism of things and our acts of protest always be to the tastes of those we criticise? I don’t think so; that kind of defeats the point. The point is to offend, to upset, to alarm. The way that those protesting have been offended, upset, and alarmed by those they protest. Or does an eye for an eye make the whole world blind? I guess one eye will have to do.
What is interesting to me was McGarva’s insistence that Coskun was motivated by a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. Coskun said he was criticising the institution of Islam, and was found with a t-shirt that said “Islam is a terrorist ideology” suggesting the clear direction of his criticism at the institution and ideas of Islam.
However, McGarva justified his conclusion by referencing the police interview where Coskun talks about how Islam spreads itself through reproduction, invasion, and attacking those who do not believe in Islam, all supported by the Quaran. Ignoring Coskun’s insistence that what he is against is not all Muslims, but the thinking that is encouraged by the religion of Islam that incites violence against non-believers. McGarva did not accept this distinction.
While Coskun does refer to the adherents of Islam, I think it is quite clear that he is not talking about all Muslims, but the doctrine itself and his belief that the book advocates for violence against non-believer and other crimes. One could describe other traditions in this way, by what the adherents do as per the guidance given by the book.
And why is it not possible to separate his views of Islam from its adherents? Is it not possible in this case, or not possible at all? Does a religion exist without its adherents? Can I criticise something a religion advocates without criticising all its adherents, even those who do not engage in that specific practice? Judge McGarva doesn’t think so.
Should the burning of a Bible in front of a church or a Torah in front of a synagogue accompanied by “fuck Christianity” and “fuck Judaism” be interpreted as showing a deep-seated hatred of its followers, or should a distinction be made between the two? As painful as it would be to see these occur, I think we ought to have the courage of our convictions and the consistency in principle to say ‘no’.
On Coskun’s claims about Islam, here is an excerpt from an article published in an Islamist magazine called Dabiq titled ‘why we hate you & why we fight you’ that you can find here:
“What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam… we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter”
Whether this is an accurate representation of the doctrine of Islam or is adopted by many Muslims, it fair to say that enough people have adopted these aspects of Islam to publish about it and cause terror and destruction across the world in societies that differ from Islamic societies. It seems that Judge McGarva’s reasons for assessing Coskun as having a deep-seated hatred for the people is Islam is based on things that are true of the world. Should hatred of something true and openly aggressive be an aggravating factor?
Coskun has since written about seeking refuge in the UK after being persecuted as an atheist and his reasons for burning the Quran at the Turkish embassy. He has defiantly said, along with the FSU, that he is prepared to take this to the highest courts in Europe where questions like those I have asked here will likely be considered in the process.
I am hopeful that it will not come to this. It is not uncommon for judgements at Magistrates courts to be overturned or altered by the High Court. Also, the recent ruling of the Supreme Court on the definition of ‘woman’ in the context of equalities law has given hope to many that there is still some sanity left in the judiciary concerning the things we all knew to be true until the Great Awokening.
So, the question of how free we are to criticise orthodoxies and status quos continues to play out in society. I am optimistic, perhaps naively, that saner heads will prevail in defending the right to free speech, conscience and religiosity. Values that sit at the heart of British culture and of Western liberal civilisation.
Nothing is above question, insult, or ridicule.
I stand with Hamit Coskun and commend him for his bravery.
Share this post