A U.K. judge has allowed a knife-wielding Islamist who attacked a Quran-burning free speech activist to go unpunished, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) opting not to bring charges of “religiously aggravated” offense against the assailant.
Britain has Islamic blasphemy laws. It is now beyond doubt.
In a “travesty of justice,” Circuit Judge Adam Hiddleston made “excuse after excuse” for Moussa Kadri during the trial on September 23 and allowed him to walk free despite his “savage attack” on Hamit Coskun, The Spectator observed.
Hiddleston, who sentenced a businessman to a year in prison for sending abusive emails to politicians, referred to Kadri as a “hitherto exemplary character,” taking the approach “that to burn a ‘holy’ Qur’an is a very sacrilegious and blasphemous act,” the magazine added.
In June, a U.K. court triggered alarm bells among secularists and free speech campaigners after it convicted Coskun of violating laws against promoting public disorder. The judge accused Coskun of being motivated by a “deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
Kadri assaulted Coskun—an ex-Muslim political refugee from Turkey whose mother’s family was killed in the Armenian genocide—with a knife after he set fire to the Qur’an outside the Turkish Embassy in London on February 13. A delivery driver kicked Coskun after he fell to the ground.
Omitting Charge of “Religiously Aggravated” Offence
Several parliamentarians and free speech activists expressed indignation at Hiddleston’s leniency, accusing the judge of promoting a system of two-tier justice and greenlighting Islamists who are attempting to impose a blasphemy law.
“This Islamist has dodged prison despite attacking a man with a knife for burning a Qur’an,” Robert Jenrick, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, tweeted. The parliamentarian has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking why “no religiously aggravated count” was added to the charges “given the stated motive” of the assailant.
Religiously aggravated offences under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have higher maximum penalties than the non-aggravated versions of those offences. An offence is “religiously aggravated” if it is wholly or partly motivated by religious hostility.
“This was a landmark case where significant violence was deployed to oppress the victim’s right to freedom of expression, primarily because of the attacker’s religious views,” Jenrick wrote. “When a man arms himself and deploys violence to shut someone up, the law must bite; if the CPS will not use the tools Parliament has given it, I will promptly put this before the House.”
“Who took the charging decision, what material was before them (including the video), and how was the Code for Crown Prosecutors applied to a knife-enabled reprisal aimed at silencing lawful expression in a public place?” the lawmaker asked in his letter.
Kadri’s remarks demonstrate that the offence was religiously aggravated. He told Coskun, “Burning the Quran? It’s my religion, you don’t burn the Quran.” He later told police: “I protect my religion.”
The CPS charged Kadri with only two offences: possession of a knife and common assault. “We fully considered a number of possible offences in respect of Moussa Kadri but concluded for evidential reasons that the charges of common assault and possession of a bladed article reflected the evidence available,” a CPS spokesperson told Focus on Western Islamism (FWI). “Sentences are decided by independent judges.”
In his ruling, Hiddleston noted that the fact that Kadri “sought to mislead those investigating this case by sending a photograph of a palette knife, something you were clearly not carrying is an aggravating factor.”
Nevertheless, the judge argued that the effect of Kadri’s “incarceration now on others would be wholly disproportionate,” and gave him a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 18 months, allowing the assailant to escape prison.
Lawmakers Slam Blasphemy Laws
“Britain has Islamic blasphemy laws. It is now beyond doubt,” Nick Timothy, MP, posted on X. The lawmaker noted that while Kadri’s justification for attacking Coskun was to protect his religion, his only punishment was a suspended sentence.
Highlighting the two-tier system of justice that campaigners have been complaining about, Claire Coutinho, MP, remarked: “Slashing at someone with a knife because they offended your religion by burning the Quran. No jail time. Posting nasty words on Twitter. Jail time.”
“We are not a country that believes in blasphemy laws. No religion should be above criticism,” she added in an interview. “But more than that, we are a country that is built on common law. We have to all be equal before the law.”
Speaking to Focus on Western Islamism (FWI), Tim Dieppe, Islamic scholar and head of public policy at Christian Concern, underlined the two-tier policy discriminating in favor of Islamists:
Lucy Connolly put up a tweet which she later regretted. It said “set fire to all the f* hotels . . . for all I care . . .” She deleted the tweet after 3 ½ hours. For this, she was jailed for over 12 months, despite being a mother of young children. … The fact that Kadri was spared jail, while Connolly was jailed, is clear evidence of two-tier justice. One posted a tweet, the other committed actual violence. Actual violence is much more serious than a tweet and ought to be treated so by the courts.
Lord Young of Acton, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, warned that the sentence “sends a green light to any Muslim who wants to enforce an Islamic blasphemy by taking the law into their own hands.”
“The court is effectively saying that if you attack a blasphemer with a knife, he will be convicted of causing you harassment, alarm or distress and you won’t have to spend a day behind bars,” he added.
