But what if it’s true?

British courts have been accused of reviving blasphemy laws after a man who set fire to a copy of the Koran was convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence.

Hamit Coskun shouted “fuck Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism” while holding the religious text above his head during a protest on Feb 13. The 50-year-old, who was violently attacked by a passerby during the demonstration in London, went on trial last week, accused of an offence under the Public Order Act.

At Westminster magistrates’ court on Monday, he was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated “in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam”.

But if an ideology is a really bad, hostile to humans, especially hostile to women and “infidels” and Jews, punitive, coercive ideology, then “hostility” to its members is pretty much inevitable, isn’t it? Face it: it’s a profoundly hostile religion.

Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said: “This decision is wrong. It revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed. Free speech is under threat. I have no confidence in Two-Tier Keir to defend the rights of the public to criticise all religions.”

The public doesn’t have the right to say men are not women, so we can’t expect it to have the right to say Islam is a nightmare.

The CPS said that Coskun was not being prosecuted for burning the book. They argued it was the combination of his derogatory remarks about Islam and the fact that it was done in public that made it an offence.

Making derogatory remarks about a religion should never ever be an offence aka a punishable crime.

The CPS originally charged Coskun, who is an atheist, with harassing the “religious institution of Islam”. However, the charge was later amended after free speech campaigners took up his cause and argued he was essentially being accused of blasphemy.

Harassing Islam ffs! Harassing the religious institution that is Islam! That’s not even a thing!

However, the charge was later amended after free speech campaigners took up his cause and argued he was essentially being accused of blasphemy.

Because he was.

Katy Thorne KC, Coskun’s barrister, had argued that even the amended charges against him effectively criminalised any public burning of a religious book and were tantamount to blasphemy laws. “It is effectively chilling the right of citizens to criticise religion,” she said.

She said Coskun’s actions were not motivated by hostility towards the followers of Islam but to the religion itself. Judge McGarva, however, said he did not accept that argument.

Addressing Coskun, he said: “You believe Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violent paedophilia and a disregard for the rights of non-believers. You don’t distinguish between the two. I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That is based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family.”

Ok let’s talk about that. How does one distinguish between the two? If there is a set of beliefs, an ideology, that includes a lot of harsh rules and restrictions and punishments, and that treats women and unbelievers as evil and thus deserving of death by torture, how is it possible not to feel at least wary about the adherents to that belief? There are liberal reformist Muslims who really do reject the harsh rules and punishments, but still, when an ideology is as warped and murderous as Islam is, it’s difficult to make the distinction. It could be that that’s Islam’s fault as opposed to the fault of infidels.

The National Secular Society (NSS), which, alongside the Free Speech Union, paid for Coskun’s legal fees, said the verdict “jeopardises” free expression.

A spokesperson for the FSU said: “This is deeply disappointing. Everyone should be able to exercise their rights to protest peacefully and to freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive or upsetting it may be to some people.

“The Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society intend to appeal this verdict and keep on appealing it until it’s overturned. If that means taking it all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, we will do so.”

Good. Now do “men are not women.”