A man has been convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offense,” and he’s been fined more than $300, because a violent radical was so upset with the speech that he attacked him.
“That’s right, a man’s violent attack on another was cited as evidence of the victim’s guilt,” explained a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The case developed in London, where Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker Hamit Coskun was accused of burning a Quran.
“Coskun ignited a new round of debate over blasphemy in the UK after burning a Quran outside London’s Turkish consulate and yelling,” among other themes, “Islam is a religion of terrorism.”
He has said that was a protest against the “Islamist government of Erdogan,” the strong-arm leader of Turkey.
As a result of Coskun’s statements, London resident Moussa Kadri attacked Coskun.
The result was that Westminster Magistrates’ Court found Coskun guilty because he was attacked.
That’s despite the evidence showing Kadri attacked Coskun with a knife, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him while he was on the ground.
The judge justified the conviction by claiming the disorderly nature of Coskun’s protest “is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.”
A report by Reuters said the verdict effectively reinstated an abolished blasphemy statute, which fell in 2008.
Judge John McGarva claimed, “Burning a religious book, although offensive, to some is not necessarily disorderly. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the ‘F word’ and direct it towards Islam.”
The nation’s Conservative Party said, “Britain has no blasphemy laws. Yet this verdict creates one de facto. Parliament never voted for it. The British people do not want it. This decision is wrong.”