Convicted for Burning a Quran

Delivering his verdict, Judge McGarva cited Coskun’s refusal to distinguish between Islam and Muslims for his decision to convict him:

“You believe Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violent paedophilia and a disregard for the rights of non-believers.

You don’t distinguish between the two. I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That is based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family.”

Is Judge McGarva to be considered an authority on Islamic scripture? Can he enlighten us as to how stoning women to death for adultery, owning sex-slaves as that which “the right hand possesses”, or the Prophet marrying Aisha when she was six years old, is in keeping with British values? Or is he convicting Coskun according to a liberal misinterpretation of Islam as one among many equal religions to choose from a multicultural buffet? Will he express similar outrage over the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, who subjected English girls to torture, branding, forced conversions, and Quran readings, motivated by racial and religious hatred, and who have gone largely unpunished?

Coskun is not the only person fleeing Islamic persecution to be mistreated by Western institutions. “Maria”, a pseudonymized Christian woman fleeing forced conversion in her home country, had her asylum application rejected by a member of the Home Office’s 700-person Islamic Network. As Conservative Woman wrote last week:

“A female Muslim Home Office investigator rejected her claim, accused Maria of making it all up, and misinterpreted passages from various international reports and Home Office country reports to make it appear that Maria’s country was safe for Christians.”

The Islamic Network has been described by one civil servant as “an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office [which] represents a serious threat to the Government’s aims in combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to those fleeing Islamic countries over religious persecution.”

Britain’s institutional timbers have been rotted through by Islamist ideological capture. Our common law legal system and civil service, once par excellence, are enforcing an Islamic blasphemy law, and regard Muslims as a race — an Ummah — worthy of special protections against the host majority population. The government seeks only to accelerate this, by building a new working group to “provide a definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia”, adopted as guidance for future public order offences. It contains authors of the previous All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims definition: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” This self-referential definition is designed to conflate religion and race, and ensnare Islam’s critics in a net of censorship. Any of us who object to the sectarian takeover of Britain’s institutions by a religion anathema to our traditions will be treated like Coskun very soon.

It is the job of politicians to defeat these insidious incursions on the English liberty of free speech. Rupert Lowe MP has tabled a motion in Parliament, “recognising that in a free society, no religion or belief system, including Islam, should be immune from criticism, debate, satire or offence”. As of yet, only five other MPs have signed. More must stand on principle against the provision of special treatment to a religion which would not afford us the same courtesy. Likewise, the Public Order Act 1986, Malicious Communications Act 1988, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Communications Act 2003, and all other legislation responsible for over 12,000 arrests every year for public and online speech must be repealed and never replaced. It is the role of civic society, not the state, to determine what constitutes distasteful speech.

But most of all, it is the fault of the failed, unwanted policies of mass third-world immigration and the subsequent management strategy of multicultural appeasement that violent, sectarian Islam is in Britain in the first place. It didn’t have to be this way. We could reject it as a set of beliefs and customs wholly inappropriate for how we want to run our country. We can and should stop importing it. We should deport all illegal immigrants, foreign prisoners, and those incapable of and unwilling to assimilate to our reasserted way of life. Otherwise, Islam will go from the de facto to the express belief system of the British state.

---

This article (CONVICTED FOR BURNING A QURAN) was created and published by Courage Media and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Connor Tomlinson

The Most Interesting Event in the Coskun Case Isn’t Necessarily De Facto Blasphemy

The CPS and judge’s conduct tells us just as much, if not, more.

JJ STARKEY

Given Britain’s record on asylum seekers, the last thing you’d expect is for someone fleeing genuine political persecution to face it again in the country they sought refuge in.

Yet that appears to be exactly what happened to Hamit Coskun, a Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker who arrived in the UK after enduring a reported seven years of torture and imprisonment in Turkey. His brother, also a political activist, was killed in 1997.

This week, Coskun—now 50—was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence for burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier in February.

The protest, partly filmed, captured Coskun shouting “f*** Islam” and “Islam is [a] religion of terrorism” as he burned the book (which he reportedly bought). Inside his bag was a T-shirt reading: “Islam is a terrorist ideology. The Quran should be banned.”

Moments later, he was attacked.

A man emerged from a neighbouring building wielding what looked like a blade and slashed at Coskun, shouting: “You’re a fing idiot… burn the Quran… I’m going to fing kill you now.”

As Coskun fell, the man kicked him. Next, a passing Deliveroo cyclist joined in, kicking Coskun while he was down.

Now, there was a lot about the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the judge’s conduct that tells us about the current condition of the British “justice system”.

Blasphemy Laws?

.
After District Judge John McGarva found Coskun guilty, commentators quickly argued that Britain’s blasphemy laws—abolished 17 years ago—had returned in all but name.

But arguably, they were never truly abolished—just rebranded under vague, sweeping public order, communications, and now online safety legislation.

How else do we explain the case of Daffron Williams? (This is just one recent case of hundreds going back a decade).

A non-violent protestor—and Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran suffering from PTSD—Williams was arrested and prosecuted for “stirring up racial hatred” after posting “anti-Islam” content on Facebook in the wake of the Southport unrest.

Among the posts cited was an AI-generated image of a child dressed as a medieval knight standing beside a lion, captioned: “Time to wake up the lion to save our children’s future.”

He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in prison. It has since been revealed that Williams has undergone “diversity” re-education while serving his sentence.

Put simply: we’ve had pseudo-blasphemy laws for some time. Essentially, any communications—if deemed “offensive”, “abusive”, or “likely to incite hatred”—can be prosecuted if the authorities so choose.

Judge’s Verdict

.
The much more pertinent revelation, however, came with Judge McGarva’s sentencing remarks. He said to Coskun in court:

“I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers… your actions were accompanied by bad language, in some cases directed toward the religion, and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.”

This, despite Coskun explicitly stating in his police interview:

“I do not have any problem or prejudice against Muslim people so long as they do not use violence…”

During his protest, Coskun also never mentioned Muslims but Islam. By all accounts, his contention is with the religion as an institution.

So, once again, we have a judge who—just like those in the non-violent Southport protestor trials—effectively ignores the defendant’s own explanation at face value and replaces it with his own subjective assumption, without a shred of hard evidence to support it.

McGarva had no psychological assessment to go on. No expert testimony, much like dozens of judges didn’t last year.

Take the case of non-violent Southport protestor Tyler Kay as a quick comparison. His judge, Adrienne Lucking KC, declared he had a “fundamentally racist mindset”—even though Kay plainly stated he was not a racist.

Kay reposted Lucy Connolly’s post that she did not care if “asylum seeker” hotels were set on fire in solidarity after hearing of her arrest. He was jailed for longer than Lucy—38 months.

In an equally troubling twist, Judge McGarva added in his verdict:

“That (Hamit’s) conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].”

So Coskun’s conviction partly rested on the fact that he was attacked. Burning a book—however offensive some may find it—was framed as disorderly because it provoked violence.

Critics have since said this effectively constitutes ‘heckler’s veto by violence’—a precedent whereby attacks don’t lead to harsher consequences for the perpetrator, but instead the speaker.

It’s circular logic: he was assaulted, so his actions must have been disorderly.

More Judicial Bias?

.
Judge McGarva’s prior rulings may offer a glimpse into his outlook.

In April 2020, he fined two individuals £370 for hosting a barbecue during lockdown, citing the gathering of six people as “putting lives at risk.”

In January 2023, he handed down a non-custodial sentence to a woman caught stealing kitchen appliances from a garden centre.

And in March 2024, he gave a 17-year-old—who had two previous convictions for supplying Class A drugs—a “final chance,” issuing a rehabilitation order instead of prison.

Let’s not forget: we live in a world where charities offering legal aid to migrants crossing the Channel also have their own serving as deputy judges in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

The idea that the judiciary is free from bias is a myth—one seemingly only progressive lawyers and barristers still pretend to believe.

CPS’s Bizarre Behaviour

.
Then we have the CPS’s conduct.

First, they charged Hamit Coskun with “intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harassment, alarm or distress,” under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Then, they acknowledged this isn’t really a thing—”incorrectly worded” as it was put—and amended the charges.

Second, after McGarva’s verdict, a CPS spokesman claimed Coskun hadn’t been prosecuted for burning the Koran—but rather for “disorderly behaviour in public.”

So why was he charged and convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence, rather than a non-aggravated public order breach?

Perhaps the CPS are so worried about optics they’ve started obscuring the basic facts of their own case—hardly a show of confidence on their part.

Meanwhile, the man caught on camera slashing at Coskun with a weapon and shouting “I’m going to f***ing kill you now” isn’t due to face trial until 2027—more than two years after the event.

For context: making a threat to kill can carry up to 10 years in prison. But judging by the courts’ and/or CPS’s priorities, burning a book seems to prompt a swifter, sterner response.

To add to the farce, a court-imposed reporting restriction means the press can’t name him, even though he’s been formally charged.

As for the Deliveroo cyclist who stopped to kick Coskun while he lay defenceless on the ground—there’s been no update at all.

This is the same CPS, as writer Connor Tomlinson astutely pointed out, that dropped their case against a group of pro-Palestine protestors, who drove through North London in May 2021, shouting, “F*ck their mothers, r*pe their daughters”.

They said there was “no longer a realistic prospect of either defendant being convicted”. In total, four suspects had their charges dropped.

All for What?

.
In his concluding remarks, Judge McGarva outlined the financial penalty for Coskun.

“For an A1 offence,” he explained, “the starting point is a Band C fine based on 150% of weekly income. Because of the racial (racial?) element, I will increase the sentence to a Band D fine based on 200% of weekly income.”

McGarva issued a collection order: £20 per month, with the first payment due within 28 days.

So, after hours upon hours of legal work, police time, and judicial proceedings—all during a time when British courts are backlogged to high heaven—the outcome amounts to a 20 quid-a-month repayment plan.

Of course, the larger effect is that more citizens might think twice before they criticise the institution of Islam, or rather Muslims—because it seems you can’t do one without the other.

Coskun is now expected to appeal, with support likely again coming from the Free Speech Union.

You can read the judge’s full sentencing remarks here.

Three days ago, Coskun sat down with GB News’ Patrick Christys for what made for an astonishing interview—recommended watch:

• Do you really believe our best days lie ahead?
• Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
• If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can, genuinely, make a real impact.
• In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 100 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and realise the stakes at play.

---

This article (The Most Interesting Event in the Coskun Case Isn’t Necessarily De Facto Blasphemy) was created and published by The Stark Naked Brief and is republished here under “Fair Use”