You should be able to burn a book and critique a religion.
The moment you can’t this country is done.
Adm_Shelby2 on
Obviously the correct outcome but what on Earth were the DPP thinking trying to appeal his acquittal?
antbaby_machetesquad on
Great news, although I fear this victory for free speech will be very short lived once Labour produce their new ‘Islamophobia’ definition.
High-Tom-Titty on
I once heard an American say ‘You and beat the rap, but not the ride”. The CPS made it as difficult as they could for him, to try and dissuade anyone else from trying anything similar.
SuperrVillain85 on
Other than the result there’s very little actual info about the judges ruling in this and the BBC article.
DukePPUk on
Well that’s a nonsense headline.
This ruling was neither “landmark” nor about “blasphemy.” Although obviously the Telegraph would love to pretend otherwise.
Rather than being a “landmark blasphemy” case, the High Court basically shrugged and said “yeah, the Crown Court was fine to do what it did.”
> the question for [the High Court] is whether the Crown Court’s conclusions were rationally open to it…. We do not consider its reasoning contained any logical flaw of
the kind we have referred to. We are satisfied that the conclusions arrived at were rationally open to the court.
Ultimately the main case came down to whether Coskun’s behaviour was disorderly and likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress:
> Whether conduct amounts to “disorderly behaviour” and whether it is “likely” to cause a person “harassment, alarm or distress” are separate and distinct questions. But each is a question of fact. The words we have quoted are all ordinary English words. Their natural meaning is a question of fact not one of law.
The Magistrates’ Court concluded that it was, on the facts. The Crown Court concluded that it wasn’t, on the same facts.
The DPP’s argument on appeal to the High Court was that the Crown Court couldn’t rationally have concluded the way they did. The High Court basically said yes, they could.
The High Court isn’t saying that the behaviour *wasn’t* disorderly and *wasn’t* likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, but that the Crown Court was entitled to conclude that way.
Personal_Lab_484 on
A victory for freedom and human decency. It’s a book. We are not living in the Middle Ages and the book has no more right to protection than Harry Potter.
Harry Potter contains less references to rape and sexual abuse too but that is by the by.
Now for an apology from those prosecuting and a deliberate affirmation in law of the right to offend and criticise all ideologies.
If Muslims dislike this Heathrow airport is ready to be used.
[deleted] on
[removed]
[deleted] on
[removed]
[deleted] on
[removed]
SmashedWorm64 on
It’s quite poor form imo, however he’s within his rights to do so.
[deleted] on
[removed]
Goosepond01 on
Been following this for a very long time, overjoyed at the outcome.
Hopefully we can move towards french anti religion laws soon
ElusiveCrab on
I think its a stupid act to go antagnoise religious folks like that. But in no civilised country should it be a crimimal offense.
Mister_Sith on
I think there’s been a lot of misrepresentation about what the case has been about. I’m not convinced it was ever going to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door. For me, the most pertinent part is what the crown court said (paraphrasing) “the criminal conduct of one should not make criminal the speech of another”.
The CPS I think erred significantly in trying to argue that the response of the knife men and cyclist proves that the conduct was distressing. I have very little confidence they would bring this argument in other circumstances and I leave it to the readers imagination to think up some scenarios.
It would very much be the wrong takeaway that its legal to burn the Koran. If someone does it in front of a Mosque on a holy day, I think the CPS will have a much easier time getting a case to stick but it isn’t a blasphemy law by another name at all. There’s other distressing things you can do that will probably get you arrested and prosecuted that have nothing to do with religion or ideology and you’ll be prosecuted with the same law and same arguments.
cococupcakeo on
With thanks to the national secular society and the free speech union. We don’t have, nor want, blasphemy laws in the U.K.
Goosepond01 on
I’m sick of these posts having participation limits, god forbid something is interesting and has some controversy.
17 Comments
Absolutely the right, and best, outcome.
You should be able to burn a book and critique a religion.
The moment you can’t this country is done.
Obviously the correct outcome but what on Earth were the DPP thinking trying to appeal his acquittal?
Great news, although I fear this victory for free speech will be very short lived once Labour produce their new ‘Islamophobia’ definition.
I once heard an American say ‘You and beat the rap, but not the ride”. The CPS made it as difficult as they could for him, to try and dissuade anyone else from trying anything similar.
Other than the result there’s very little actual info about the judges ruling in this and the BBC article.
Well that’s a nonsense headline.
This ruling was neither “landmark” nor about “blasphemy.” Although obviously the Telegraph would love to pretend otherwise.
You can read the judgment and a press summary [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/director-of-public-prosecutions-v-hamit-coskun-2/). It’s a pretty short and accessible judgment; 33 paragraphs most of which are setting out the background.
Rather than being a “landmark blasphemy” case, the High Court basically shrugged and said “yeah, the Crown Court was fine to do what it did.”
> the question for [the High Court] is whether the Crown Court’s conclusions were rationally open to it…. We do not consider its reasoning contained any logical flaw of
the kind we have referred to. We are satisfied that the conclusions arrived at were rationally open to the court.
Ultimately the main case came down to whether Coskun’s behaviour was disorderly and likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress:
> Whether conduct amounts to “disorderly behaviour” and whether it is “likely” to cause a person “harassment, alarm or distress” are separate and distinct questions. But each is a question of fact. The words we have quoted are all ordinary English words. Their natural meaning is a question of fact not one of law.
The Magistrates’ Court concluded that it was, on the facts. The Crown Court concluded that it wasn’t, on the same facts.
The DPP’s argument on appeal to the High Court was that the Crown Court couldn’t rationally have concluded the way they did. The High Court basically said yes, they could.
The High Court isn’t saying that the behaviour *wasn’t* disorderly and *wasn’t* likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, but that the Crown Court was entitled to conclude that way.
A victory for freedom and human decency. It’s a book. We are not living in the Middle Ages and the book has no more right to protection than Harry Potter.
Harry Potter contains less references to rape and sexual abuse too but that is by the by.
Now for an apology from those prosecuting and a deliberate affirmation in law of the right to offend and criticise all ideologies.
If Muslims dislike this Heathrow airport is ready to be used.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
It’s quite poor form imo, however he’s within his rights to do so.
[removed]
Been following this for a very long time, overjoyed at the outcome.
Hopefully we can move towards french anti religion laws soon
I think its a stupid act to go antagnoise religious folks like that. But in no civilised country should it be a crimimal offense.
I think there’s been a lot of misrepresentation about what the case has been about. I’m not convinced it was ever going to introduce a blasphemy law by the back door. For me, the most pertinent part is what the crown court said (paraphrasing) “the criminal conduct of one should not make criminal the speech of another”.
The CPS I think erred significantly in trying to argue that the response of the knife men and cyclist proves that the conduct was distressing. I have very little confidence they would bring this argument in other circumstances and I leave it to the readers imagination to think up some scenarios.
It would very much be the wrong takeaway that its legal to burn the Koran. If someone does it in front of a Mosque on a holy day, I think the CPS will have a much easier time getting a case to stick but it isn’t a blasphemy law by another name at all. There’s other distressing things you can do that will probably get you arrested and prosecuted that have nothing to do with religion or ideology and you’ll be prosecuted with the same law and same arguments.
With thanks to the national secular society and the free speech union. We don’t have, nor want, blasphemy laws in the U.K.
I’m sick of these posts having participation limits, god forbid something is interesting and has some controversy.