A man has been found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence after he burnt a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London, in a case that has reignited debate over the limits of free speech and the line between protest and hate.
Hamit Coskun, 50, was accused of chanting Islamophobic slogans as he held up a burning copy of the Islamic holy text in Knightsbridge, west London, in February.
District Judge John McGarva ruled on Monday that the defendant’s actions were “motivated at least in part by hostility towards Muslims” and that his conduct “was not a reasonable exercise” of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Delivering the verdict, McGarva said on Monday: “Your actions in burning the Quran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by abusive language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.”
The defendant argued that he was exercising his “right of freedom of speech” in his action, which sparked a large reaction in Britain as footage of the incident went viral on social media platforms.
Public disorder
However, the judge rejected the defendant’s narrative, noting that he “clearly holds a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. His attempt to distinguish between the religion and its adherents was not sustainable.”
In his verdict, Judge McGarva found the defendant’s actions on the day in question to be deliberately provocative.
Standing outside the embassy, the man held up a Quran, set it on fire, and repeatedly shouted, “The Quran is burning,” while using what the judge described as “abusive language,” including expletives directed at Islam.
The demonstration provoked two assaults against him – though unjustified – which the court said showed the extent of “serious public disorder” the act had triggered.
The judge concluded that the defendant had intended to cause such a reaction.
“The timing, place and the conduct you chose. You knew Muslims would be present, and you were aware that his conduct was likely to be provocative,” he said.
