Latest news with #IslamCriticism
Telegraph
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
State is ‘stifling criticism of Islam over fear of violent mobs', says Tory MP
The state is stifling criticism of Islam because of fears of a violent mob reaction, a senior MP has claimed. Nick Timothy, a front-bench Tory MP, issued the warning ahead of his Bill aimed at protecting free speech and the right to criticise religions, including Islam, being presented before Parliament on Tuesday. It follows the conviction of Hamit Coskun, 50, for setting fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. He was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Mr Timothy, who is a columnist for The Telegraph, is proposing a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill that would rewrite the Public Order Act to prevent it being used as a 'de facto' blasphemy law. His bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend legal provisions – which protect the freedom to criticise religion in specific circumstances – to the whole of the Public Order Act. 'The Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. The Act was never intended to do this. Parliament never voted for this, and the British people do not want it,' said Mr Timothy. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is especially perverse, since it makes a protester accountable for the actions of those who respond with violence to criticism of their faith. This is wrong, and it destroys our freedom of speech. 'We should be honest that the law is only being used in this way because the authorities have become afraid of the violent reaction of mobs of people who want to impose their values on the rest of us. 'My Bill will put a stop to this and restore our freedom of speech – and our right to criticise any and all religions, including Islam.' At Westminster magistrates' court, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kurdish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F---- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict.
Telegraph
03-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Protect freedom to criticise Islam in law, MPs demand
The freedom to criticise Islam must be protected, Tory MPs have demanded amid a row over a man's conviction for burning a Koran. Following a trial at Westminster magistrates' court, Hamit Coskun, 50, was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Coskun set fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive and expand long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Nick Timothy, a Conservative MP, is proposing to put a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill before the Commons next Tuesday. The proposed Bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend section 29J of the Public Order Act, which protects the criticism of religions and religious beliefs so that it covers section 4A and section 5 of the Public Order Act, under which Coskun was charged. Mr Timothy argued that those parts of the Act are currently being used to prosecute legitimate criticism and protest regarding Islam. He said that while England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008, they were now effectively being revived through the use of the Public Order Act. The Bill, if enacted, would 'protect free speech and ensure no religion is above the law'. Section 29J of the Public Order Act provides protection to the right to criticise or express 'antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents'. Mr Timothy told The Telegraph: 'We now have a blasphemy law in this country. 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, who is among the MPs who signed 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.' At Westminster magistrates' court on Monday, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kudish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F--- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict. During his protest, Coskun was attacked by a passer-by, who kicked and punched him and spat him while he lay on the ground. Although the man has admitted assaulting Coskun, he has denied using a knife in the attack. Passing sentence on Coskun on Monday, District Judge John McGarva dismissed the suggestion that the prosecution was an attempt to 'bring back and expand blasphemy law'. He said Coskun had a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers' and that what made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the protest and the fact it was accompanied by abusive language. He said the fact Coskun was attacked during the protest showed he posed a risk to public order. The judge concluded that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and 'were motivated at least in part, by hatred of followers of the religion'. 'Helpful if the law was clarified' The Free Speech Union (FSU) paid for Coskun's legal fees alongside the National Secular Society, with both welcoming the Bill. Lord Young, the director and founder of the FSU, said: 'The Free Speech Union is helping Hamit Coskum 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.' A spokesman for the National Secular Society said the conviction of Coskun was 'another damaging chip away at the fundamental right to free expression'. The spokesman added: 'Section 29J's robust free speech provisions explicitly protect expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, and even abuse of beliefs, clearly signalling Parliament's intent to prevent the resurgence of blasphemy laws. 'With public order laws being used as a proxy for blasphemy codes to appease religious fundamentalists, the case for broadening freedom of expression protections is clear.'
