A man in London was convicted of a “religiously aggravated public order offense” after HE was attacked by a triggered radical.
Hamit Coskun, a Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker, was fined over $300 after burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate as a protest against Turkey’s Islamist government.
Moussa Kadri attacked Coskun with a knife, knocked him down, and kicked him.
But it is Coskun, the victim of a physical attack, who is being punished.
The Westminster Magistrates’ Court held Coskun responsible, citing the violent reaction as evidence of his guilt.
Judge John McGarva stated, “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 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) noted the irony of the attacker’s actions being used to convict the victim.
Coskun ignited a new round of debate over blasphemy in the UK after burning a Quran outside London’s Turkish consulate and yelling “F*** Islam” and “Islam is a religion of terrorism,” which he has since repeatedly claimed was a protest against “the Islamist government of Erdoğan,” Turkey’s president. In response, Kadri attacked him with a knife, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him while he was down.
But there’s a particularly disturbing element to this case. Namely, the judge’s justification for the conviction. The “disorderly” nature of Coskun’s protest, the judge said, “is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people.”
That’s right, a man’s violent attack on another was cited as evidence of the victim’s guilt.
Coskun’s lawyer had argued that the prosecution amounted to an attempt to bring back a blasphemy law abolished in England in 2008.
The Conservative Party noted, “Blasphemy laws have no place in Britain. Yet this verdict creates one de-facto.”
“Parliament never voted for it. The British people do not want it.”
“This decision is wrong.”
Blasphemy laws have no place in Britain. Yet this verdict creates one de-facto.
Parliament never voted for it. The British people do not want it.
This decision is wrong. pic.twitter.com/NzHqItHtfz
— Conservatives (@Conservatives) June 2, 2025
The post Victim Blaming: UK Judge Uses Violence Committed Against Man as Evidence of His Guilt appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.