Blasphemy laws and 'two-tier' justice
The fallout from two criminal cases surrounding the burning of a copy of the Koran will be discussed at two sessions at this year's Battle of Ideas festival.
The results of two court cases connected to the burning of a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in London have caused controversy once more. On 13 February, Hamit Coskun, born in Turkey and of Kurdish and Armenian descent, burned the book in protest at the increasing Islamification of the Turkish government under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. He shouted, ‘Islam is religion of terrorism’ and ‘Koran is burning’. Another Turkish man, Moussa Kadri, then ran at Coskun, brandishing a knife and shouting ‘I’m going to kill you’, before knocking him over and repeatedly kicking him on the ground.
In June, Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence and he was fined £240. Yesterday, at Southwark Crown Court, Kadri was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison, and ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation. However, the prison sentence was suspended for 18 months – on the grounds of Kadri’s previous good character – which means he won’t serve any time in prison if he does not commit any further offences and cooperates in relation to the other orders.
Many are asking if offending members of a religion should be a criminal offence. Moreover, how is it possible for someone convicted of violence and threats to kill to walk away from court – particularly when Lucy Connolly, who was also remorseful and had a clean record, was imprisoned for a social-media post?
At this year’s Battle of Ideas festival, we have two sessions that relate to this affair. On Saturday 18 October, we’ll be discussing a forthcoming contribution to our Letters on Liberty series, The Freedom to Blaspheme. On Sunday 19 October, we’ll be debating Policing today: two-tier justice?. You can find full details of both sessions below.
Tickets for the festival are still available and our paid Substack subscribers can take advantage of our discounted ‘associate’ rates. See our tickets page for more information.
Letters on Liberty: The Freedom to Blaspheme
Saturday 18 October, 2.45pm - 4:15pm
Since 2020, the Academy of Ideas has published Letters on Liberty – a radical pamphlet series aimed at reimagining arguments for freedom today and inspiring rowdy, good-natured disagreement.
In his Letter – The Freedom to Blaspheme – writer and curator Manick Govinda argues that blasphemy law has returned through the back door – with Islam, rather than Christianity, pointing the finger at heretics. From recent cases of attacks on free speech to the self-censorship of everyone from teachers to comedians, Manick argues that blasphemers are being persecuted and prosecuted across the world. While courtesy and kindness are valuable features of a free society, he writes, no religion or religious leader should be above criticism. Kowtowing to the offended, no matter how grievous the insult they may feel, weakens our liberty.
Join Manick and respondents to discuss whether we should be free to criticise and mock religion. Is there a balance to be struck between tolerance of religious freedom and the right to publicly disagree with other people’s faith? Has the UK brought blasphemy law back to the statute books via the notion of ‘hate crime’? And after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and other Islamist attempts to censor discussion of Islam, is the problem we’re dealing with a different idea of blasphemy to the days when the Life of Brian was banned?
SPEAKERS
Dr Piers Benn
philosopher, author and lecturer
Manick Govinda
independent writer, commentator, mentor/arts adviser and curator
Khadija Khan
journalist and broadcaster; editor, A Further Inquiry; co-host, A Further Inquiry podcast
John O’Brien
head of communications, MCC Brussels
Jacob Sebastian
producer, UnHerd
CHAIR
Rosamund Cuckston
senior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon
Policing today: two-tier justice?
Sunday 19 October, 11:00am - 12:30pm
From accusations of ‘two-tier’ justice to an inability to tackle everyday criminality, the disarray enveloping British institutions is nowhere more evident than with the police.
In recent times, intervening to stop widespread crime such as shoplifting, and solving – or even investigating – ‘traditional’ crimes such as burglary has seemed less of a priority than sorting out petty disputes, enforcing speech codes, tackling catcalling or donning rainbow flags. When a couple were arrested for using a private parents’ WhatsApp group to criticise their daughter’s school, it seemed to sum up the petty, censorious nature of policing today.
Policing impartiality has been called into question by what is described as a ‘two-tier’ approach. Critics identify the perceived leniency towards Leeds Harehills rioters from the Roma community with a tough response to disturbances following the Southport murders as a turning point – not just in the exercise of public order itself, but in public perception of an unfair system.
Since then, a report by Hardeep Singh, The Many Tiers of British Justice, has noted that there are ‘many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing’. Dismay has grown at police failure to tackle – and even alleged complicity in – the grooming gangs scandals; the seeming disparity in treatment of Lucy Connolly and Labour councillor Ricky Jones has added fuel to the fire. When the High Court recently ruled that uniformed officers should no longer take part in Pride events or parades, stressing that supporting a cause can ‘undermine the public’s confidence in impartiality’, it at least seemed like recognition of the two-tier problem.
Police chiefs though reject the two-tier charge, citing limited resources, the need to police by consent, and the danger of judging complex situations through social-media clips. Others say ‘two-tier’ has become a cliché, a dog whistle to protestors or a far-right conspiracy theory – each effectively hindering officers and the wider cause of justice.
In any event, has policing not always required differential approaches to different groups or sections of society? For example, higher rates of stop and search among minorities are often justified as legitimately reflecting policing needs on the ground. Is there anything wrong with policies that reflect different needs and risks?
Whatever the truth, police priorities are increasingly perceived as diverging from public concerns while the service faces significant challenges, simultaneously lacking in authority and public consent while also confronted by a crisis of purpose and identity.
Does policing need wholesale reform to restore trust, or is the real challenge persuading the public it remains even-handed? Are accusations of two-tier policing justified, or just a cynical victimhood narrative hyped-up to make partisan political points? In a world where everyone can record and broadcast instantly, can policing survive the court of public opinion?
SPEAKERS
Peter Bleksley
writer and broadcaster; former detective, Scotland Yard
Luke Gittos
criminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic
Sarah Phillimore
barrister; co-founder, Fair Cop
Hardeep Singh
journalist; author, The many tiers of British justice: When identity politics and progressivist causes trump impartial policing; deputy director, Network of Sikh Organisations
CHAIR
Simon McKeon
founder member, Our Fight UK; QPR season ticket holder; archivist
We’re done, Starmer and Charlie are taking the knee, the end is nigh unless……