The freedom to criticise Islam must be protected, a group of parliamentarians have said following the conviction of FSU member Hamit Coskun for burning a Koran. Conservative MP Nick Timothy, backed by 11 colleagues, is now bringing forward a Bill to close what they see as a dangerous loophole in the Public Order Act and strengthen protections for speech critical of all religions.
Hamit Coskun, 50, was found guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday of using disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. District Judge John McGarva also found that he was “motivated at least in part by hostility towards members of a religious group”, meaning the offence was treated as religiously aggravated under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
On 13 February, Coskun stood outside the Turkish Consulate, held aloft a burning copy of the Quran, and shouted phrases including “Islam is the religion of terrorists” and “the Quran is burning”. He had announced the protest in advance on social media and described it as a political act, intended to highlight what he views as the spread of hardline Islam within his native Turkey under President Erdoǧan.
As Coskun’s legal team noted in pre-trial submissions, the High Court has affirmed that “legitimate protest can be offensive, at least to some, and on occasions must be, if it is to have impact” (Munim Abdul v DPP [2021] EWHC 279 (Admin)). That judgment reflects longstanding Article 10 ECHR case law, which protects not only polite speech but also speech that offends, shocks or disturbs.
Coskun’s barrister, Katy Thorne KC, expanded on that argument in court, contending that the prosecution unlawfully interfered with his Article 10 rights. Political expression, she said, enjoys the highest level of protection.
In support of that submission, the defence cited section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, which provides that “nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”. But Judge McGarva rejected that claim, ruling that section 29J applies only to Part 3A of the Act, which covers offences relating to the stirring up of religious hatred, and does not extend to public order offences under section 5, which falls under Part 1.
That legal outcome proved decisive in the outcome of the trial. It also exposed a gap in the law that Conservative MP Nick Timothy is now seeking to close.
Next week, he will introduce a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill in the House of Commons. Co-signed by 11 MPs, the Bill would extend the protections of section 29J to cover both section 4A and section 5 of the Public Order Act, the very provisions used to convict Coskun.
Mr Timothy and his co-signatories argue that without reform, section 29J offers little meaningful protection. The result, as Hamit’s case shows, is that individuals who criticise religion, particularly Islam, can still face prosecution, even when their speech is political, peaceful, and protected by Article 10.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Mr Timothy warned that the law is now being used to prosecute legitimate criticism and protest regarding Islam, effectively reviving blasphemy laws in all but name. “Parliament never voted for it, and the country doesn’t want it.”
“To use the Public Order Act in this way is completely unacceptable, and to argue the protester was shown to be guilty of disorderly conduct because he was attacked by others is grotesque. I will introduce a Bill to put a stop to all of this next week. I challenge the Government to support it.”
Sir Gavin Williamson, one of the MPs backing the Bill, said: “This Bill rightly draws a clear line in rejecting any attempt to introduce blasphemy laws through the back door.
“Britain abolished such laws to uphold open debate, critical thought, and the principle that no idea or belief is beyond scrutiny. That must not be undone.”
The Free Speech Union (FSU) paid for Coskun’s legal fees alongside the National Secular Society (NSS).
Welcoming the Bill, Lord Young of Acton, the director and founder of the FSU, said: “We’re helping Hamit Coskun appeal his conviction and we’re optimistic it will be overturned, but that’s a laborious, expensive process and it would be helpful if the law was clarified so the Crown Prosecution Service stops prosecuting people who protest against Islam or any other religion.”
You can donate to Hamit’s legal crowdfunder here.
