Latest news with #PublicOrder
Arab News
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Family of detained Baloch rights activist moves Supreme Court against her arrest
ISLAMABAD: The family of a detained Pakistani Baloch rights activists, Dr. Mahrang Baloch, filed a petition in Pakistan's Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking to overturn a provincial court ruling that upheld her arrest under public order laws, according to a local media report. Baloch, a physician and a civil society activists, has been held at Quetta's Hudda District Jail since March 22 after she participated in protests following a separatist militant attack on a passenger train in Balochistan. She was arrested under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) law, a move her supporters described as part of a broader crackdown on nonviolent dissent in the restive province. The petition, filed by her sister, argues that the detention is arbitrary and aimed at silencing peaceful activism. 'Nadia Baloch, the sister of Dr. Mahrang Baloch, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to set aside the April 15 order of the Balochistan High Court that rejected the plea against her detention under the Maintenance of Public Order,' the English-language newspaper Dawn quoted from the petition. The detained activist, who leads the Baloch Yakjehti Committee, also published a letter from prison in the US-based Time magazine this week, in which she asserted that 'speaking up for justice is not a crime.' Pakistani authorities have accused Baloch of promoting the narrative of separatist groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) in public. However, her letter in the American magazine maintained the officials had not provided any evidence of her links with BLA or any other militant group while criticizing the authorities for blurring the line between militancy and peaceful protest. Earlier this year, the Balochistan High Court dismissed Baloch's initial challenge to her detention, advising her to seek administrative remedies instead of judicial relief. Her sister's petition has now asked the apex court to suspend that ruling and review whether constitutional protections such as habeas corpus were ignored in the previous judicial decision. The Supreme Court has yet to announce when it will take up the case for hearing.
The Independent
03-06-2025
- General
- The Independent
Bringing back blasphemy laws would only be bad for Muslims
As a Muslim, I do not welcome the conviction of a man who set fire to a copy of the Quran. Hamit Coskun – a 50-year-old of Armenian and Kurdish descent who was born and raised in Turkey, and whose family have suffered persecution at the hands of Islamists – was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. He was fined £240 after he held the flaming book aloft outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge while shouted 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'F*** Islam'. His one-man protest wound up when he was himself assaulted by a passer-by. Although I find the burning of the Quran a thoroughly grotesque act – on a par, say, with derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad – the reality is that England is a country where the medieval common-law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel have been scrapped. Following the verdict, Coskun asked: 'Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the Bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said that the decision was wrong, as it put free speech is under threat: 'It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. I have no confidence in 'Two-Tier Keir' to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.' The judge made clear that it was not the burning of the holy text of Islam that warranted prosecution, but other factors. The CPS had argued that Coskun's actions had been 'a real threat to public order', while the defendant was said to have made Islamophobic comments during police interviews. There is a growing Muslim population in Britain who hold their faith very dearly – myself included – but for others, they are anxious over the presence of Islam in modern Britain and the impact of orthodox religious doctrines on wider society. The ruling to find Coskun guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence will reinforce the public perception that Islam is provided with preferential treatment under Britain's model of multicultural governance – which, in turn, will only serve to harden anti-Muslim hostility and prejudices. Contrary to this ruling being in the interests of so-called 'diversity management', it runs the risk of further undermining social cohesion. There is also the possibility that it will encourage an uptick in Quran burnings – which is an act which rarely takes place on British soil. In Scandinavia, the tension between freedom of speech and desecration of holy texts has recently been laid bare. In Sweden – a country which had some of the strongest protections for freedom of expression in the world and abolished its blasphemy laws back in the 1970s – people have been charged over the burning of the Quran. This included Salman Momika, an anti-Islam Iraqi refugee who was shot dead in January – a killing that was welcomed by al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, Denmark has passed a law to stop Quran burnings, banning the 'inappropriate treatment' of religious texts, with offenders now potentially facing imprisonment. This was quite the U-turn after the parliament, only a few years earlier, repealed a 334-year-old blasphemy law. In the UK, there is now growing pressure to re-introduce similar laws, with the Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, Tahir Ali, last year calling on Keir Starmer to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions. While the prime minister did not pledge support for Ali's proposal, neither did he rule it out. Blasphemy laws in England and Wales were abolished by a Labour government in 2008. But sometimes, it is the perception that a particular right is under threat that results in the greater exercising of it. This ruling is likely to heighten anti-religion rebelliousness, not reduce it – which is not an ideal outcome, most of all for religious social conservatives. The reality is that England is a country with an established church, which provides its faith minorities with considerable religious freedoms. British Muslims benefit from a wide array of opportunities, rights and protections which are not enjoyed by their co-religionists in other European countries such as France, where the Fifth Republic's militant secular universalism is undeniably oppressive towards its Muslim communities. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England, King Charles III, is arguably the most pro-Islam figurehead in the western world. His Majesty has previously championed Muslim contributions to the European Renaissance, extolled the virtues of Islamic finance, and championed Islam's emphasis on environmental sustainability. But none of this should be taken for granted – the pendulum should not swing so far, that the freedom to dissent and rally against organised religion in our liberal democracy is undermined by the courts. The very real fact is that religious freedom is protected by the right to blaspheme; far from being contradictory, they are mutually reinforcing. Adherents of Islam in England have the freedom to proselytise and work towards spreading their faith, known as da'wah. This can involve criticising other faiths and challenging their core tenets – such as the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation in Christianity, or idolatry in polytheistic religions such as Hinduism. Devout members of non-Muslim faith groups may find this to be gravely insulting to their faiths – indeed, blasphemous. But that is part of the social contract: with religious freedom comes the responsibility of accepting that others will behave towards one's religion in a way they may not like, to the point it may be considered grossly offensive. It is time for religious social conservatives – especially in Muslim communities – to recognise that freedom of expression is a friend, not an enemy, of Islam in modern Britain. That would be a major breakthrough for community relations in our multi-faith society.
The Independent
29-05-2025
- General
- The Independent
Man who burned Koran was attacked and spat at, court told
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in central London was attacked and spat on by a man who told him not to do so because 'it's my religion', a court heard. Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft outside the Turkish consulate in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court was told. Coskun denies a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. He also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', contrary to section five of the Public Order Act 1986. Further details of a subsequent attack on Coskun can now be reported after a judge dismissed a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) attempt to impose a reporting restriction. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard. In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'. The man approached him allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, the court heard. The footage appeared to show Coskun back away and use the burning Koran to deflect the attacker, who is alleged to have slashed out at him again. The man chased Coskun, and the defendant stumbled forward and fell to the ground, dropping the Koran, the footage showed. Coskun was spat at and kicked by the man, the court heard. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion! You don't burn the Koran.' Coskun sustained an injured finger and was taken to hospital, though it is not clear whether this was caused by the man's kicks, the court heard. The unnamed man is subject to legal proceedings. Katy Thorne KC, defending, said in her closing argument on Thursday: 'We would suggest that there is across history, and indeed now, many people who are hostile to other religions.' Ms Thorne brought up the example of some feminists being hostile to Catholicism, saying it is a 'sacrosanct right that they are entitled to have and express'. She added: 'However offensive Muslims may find the behaviour and beliefs of the defendant, he's entitled to have them, he's entitled to express them.' Ms Thorne said that Coskun felt that he was not acting in a violent way or had been disorderly in front of anyone. She added: 'He was calm, he was calmly with a raised voice saying 'Islam is the religion of terrorism' and then what happened was he was abused and violently attacked.' Prosecutor Philip McGhee said Coskun's argument that he was using the right to protest was a 'shield' for a 'hostility' towards Islam. Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a sharia regime', the prosecutor said. The defendant, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard. Ahead of his trial, in a quote released through the Free Speech Union, he said: 'Encountering such treatment in a country like England, which I truly believed to be a place where freedom prevailed, was a real shock to me.' His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS). District Judge John McGarva will pass verdict at the same court on Monday.
Irish Independent
22-05-2025
- Irish Independent
Man's behaviour towards gardaí in Sligo Courthouse was ‘totally unacceptable'
A 48-year-old man before Sligo District Court charged with two counts of Public Order was told by Judge Michael Connellan his behaviour was 'totally unacceptable'. Declan Cunnane, Declan Cunnane with addresses at Dejavu, Loughlinstown, Cherrywood, Dublin 6 and Woodfield, Ballymote, Co Sligo was charged with engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour at the Clayton Hotel, Clarion Road, Sligo on January 17 2025. He was also charged with the same offence at Sligo Courthouse, Teeling St, Sligo on May 1 2025.
Irish Independent
15-05-2025
- Irish Independent
Sligo man (36) was putting HSE staff in fear banging doors
Artur Wojtyne, Maryville Hostel, Sligo had ten previous convictions, the court was told. He was charged with section six Public Order. Sergeant Derek Butler outlined that on March 6 2024, at 6pm, in the HSE Markievicz House, Sligo, the mental health unit, an area was not open to the public. The defendant was walking up and down the corridor, banging on glass of a side door. Staff enclosed themselves for their own safety. Staff were extremely upset with the defendant's behaviour. They had to remain in the office until gardaí arrived. The defendant had ten previous convictions. Defending solicitor Mr Tom MacSharry said a Probation Report from a circuit court matter in January gave a good insight into his client. Sgt Butler said that the defendant is a regular visitor to the mental health unit since his release from prison. He has secure sheltered accommodation and is working. He is clean and sober and is on the right path when he takes his medication. Mr MacSharry said he is doing well and at the time of the offence, he was in the throes of psychosis. Judge Sandra Murphy said that he has a previous conviction for a similar offence. She said that from her perspective, he has a background of mental health issues with addiction which he needs to address. Judge Murphy said it was a serious offence when it happened and that staff were in fear and he should not have been in the place he was in. She said she wants an updated Probation Report. She adjourned to June 19. Mr MacSharry thanked her.
