High Court Overturns Conviction for Koran Burning

Freedom of speech advocate Lord Young celebrated what he described as a “huge victory” after the High Court annulled a man’s conviction for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate. This ruling came down on Friday.

A British court highlighted that criminal law isn’t meant to shield people from being upset and that freedom of expression encompasses views that might offend or disturb. This sentiment was expressed by the court during the ruling.

The High Court’s decision overturned the conviction of Hamit Coskun, who had burned a Quran in London back in July, for sedition.

What stood out about this incident wasn’t just the act of burning the book—something that has become emblematic of protests across Europe—but the immediate violence that Coskun faced afterwards. He was attacked right after setting fire to the book.

Interestingly, the attackers didn’t know each other. Seeing the burning Quran seemed to ignite their anger, leading one man, wielding a knife, to shout threats at Coskun. This man, who was convicted for his actions, received no prison sentence despite slashing Coskun.

A second attacker was a food delivery person who also kicked Coskun during the altercation.

The Free Speech Coalition backed Coskun’s appeal, warning that his conviction risked reviving blasphemy laws in Britain, a legal precedent that was discarded long ago by Parliament.

The coalition argued that Coskun was protesting against Islamic political actions under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They believed the court wrongfully merged his political protests against Islam with a supposed hatred of Muslims, which could unjustly reinforce blasphemy statutes.

The Free Speech Union welcomed the ruling, asserting that maintaining the conviction would have inadvertently encouraged religious extremists to justify violence against those who they believed were blaspheming.

Lord Young, who helped launch a fundraising campaign for Coskun’s appeal, described the judgment as a significant triumph for free speech. He said that the court’s message was clear: anti-religious protests, even if they offend, should be tolerated.

Meanwhile, the de facto leader of the Conservative Party, Robert Jenrick, attended the hearing with Coskun. He expressed his personal distaste for burning Qurans but strongly defended the right to do so.

Jenrick commented on the verdict, saying it was a positive outcome for free speech despite finding Coskun’s actions distasteful. He pointed out that the repeal of blasphemy laws was a significant step taken two decades ago, criticizing attempts to reintroduce them through indirect means.

In the judgment of Mr. Justice Bennathan, it was made clear that blasphemy charges do not exist in the current legal framework. While the act of burning the Quran might deeply disturb many, the law exists to protect freedom of expression, which includes offensive viewpoints.

In a democratic society, this right to express one’s opinions must also encompass allowing others to do the same, even when those views might be shocking or offensive.

The judge remarked that while the law protects people from harassment, a balance must be maintained. Citing previous cases, he noted that labeling disorderly speech as a crime could empower counter-protesters to silence opposing views unjustly.

He cautioned against prohibiting any speech or action that might provoke unrest, suggesting that this would unfairly empower those opposed to certain viewpoints to disrupt others’ rights to express themselves.