In victory for free speech, UK court overturns Qur'an-burning conviction

You don't have to support Hamit Coskun's ugly views to defend his right to protest

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 22,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can use the button below to subscribe or use my usual Patreon page!

---

Back in February, 50-year-old atheist Hamit Coskun stood outside the Turkish consulate in London and set fire to a copy of the Qur’an. While he did it, he yelled out phrases like “Fuck Islam” and “Islam is the religion of terrorism.” In his bag was a t-shirt with the words “Islam is a terrorist ideology. The Quran should be banned.”

He saw this as his way of protesting the Islamic government of Turkey, where he lived until coming to the UK in 2022 as a refugee. Coskun wrote on social media that the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, had “made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime.”

Hamit Coskun (image via the National Secular Society)

As soon as his protest began, another man in the area ran directly at Coskun with a knife, saying, “It’s my religion, you don’t burn the Qur’an.” An altercation ensued but Coskun escaped without harm. The assailant was later charged with assault but received a suspended jail sentence and never spent any time behind bars. After their fight, another unknown delivery driver on a bike kicked Coskun, then pedaled away.

But, shockingly, Coskun was also arrested. Under questioning, he explained that he was just exercising his freedom of speech. He added: “I’m not racist at all. I was just trying to educate people about what sort of religion Islam is.”

To pretend that everyone who practices Islam is an extremist like Erdoğan is absurd, just like the things he yelled outside the consulate. All of that, however, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that burning a holy book is peaceful, protected speech, and he didn’t deserve to be punished for it.

Prosecutors went after him anyway, saying that the fact that he was attacked proved that his protest was a “threat to public order.” (As one group said, it was a “classic case of victim blaming.”) They argued that he should’ve known burning the Qur’an would be offensive to Muslims, that he did it outside the consulate because he knew Muslims would be there, and that what he yelled out only confirmed that he wasn’t merely critiquing religion but rather the religious.

Shockingly, that’s also how the court saw it.

In June, Coskun was found guilty of a “religiously aggravated public order offence.” The judge said the burning of a holy book alone wouldn’t be a criminal act, but the location of his protest and the things he yelled out crossed a line into disorderly conduct.

Delivering the verdict, district judge John McGarva said: “Your actions in burning the Koran where you did were highly provocative, and your actions were accompanied by bad language in some cases directed toward the religion and were motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the religion.”

He ordered Coskun to pay a £240 fine, with a statutory surcharge of £96.

The judge also said “I find that the defendant has a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers… It is not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers.”

To that point, the judge said he didn’t buy the argument that Coskun was just criticizing Islam:

The defendant in his evidence has claimed his criticism is of the religion of Islam in general not its followers. I do not accept that. He believes Islam is an ideology which encourages its followers to violence, paedophilia, and a disregard for the rights of non-believers. In his mind the defendant does not distinguish between the 2. It was telling that when interviewed by the police he claimed 99% of rapists were Muslim. I do accept that the choice of location was in part because he wanted to protest what he perceives as the Islamification of Turkey, but he was also motivated by a hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location. I am sure that his motivation was in part due to hostility towards Muslims.

Even if he’s wildly racist/ignorant, generalizing about all Muslims based on what extremists do, this felt very much like punishing a man for his beliefs rather than his actions.

The National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union paid his fee and denounced the judge’s decision to effectively reinstate blasphemy laws:

Establishing a right not to be offended sounds the death knell for free expression.

Another troubling aspect of the prosecution was its failure to draw a distinction between the target of Coskun’s protest – the religion of Islam – and the followers of Islam: Muslims. The prosecution claimed Coskun’s actions were motivated by hostility towards Muslims on the basis that he shouted “Fuck Islam” and labelled it the “religion of terrorists.”

Clearly the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ has distorted the critical distinction between prejudice or hatred directed at Muslims as individuals and robust criticism of Islam or Islamism as ideologies.

…

To be clear, we don’t approve of burning books, whatever their content. But while burning a Quran in a public place may be provocative and offensive to many, it should not automatically be considered criminal. The outcome of this case represents a troubling surrender to Islamic blasphemy codes.

They were right to be worried. While Muslims are often marginalized in western countries, there are (and have been) plenty of atheists, including ex-Muslims, who have good reason to criticize Islam. There was serious concern that this case could bring about limitations on where and how those criticisms could be expressed. Furthermore, if you’re a former Muslim with no love for a religion you find deeply harmful, would you be considered a criminal for expressing beliefs about that faith many people would find offensive? Humanists UK pointed out that because of the charges against Coskun, ex-Muslims with resentment toward their former religion “may find themselves more liable to conviction in a case like this, even if those views are not publicly expressed.”

The two groups raised money for an appeal and said they wanted to fight because they could not “let the courts introduce a Muslim blasphemy law via the backdoor.” (The leader of the right-wing Tories supported that appeal, saying “De facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin.” A spokesperson for the (more liberal) prime minister added: “There are no blasphemy laws and no plans to introduce any,” which was tepid support at best.)

Coskun’s team was back in court late last week, and this time, they were in front of a sensible judge, High Court judge Joel Nathan Bennathan, and two justices of the peace who have now thankfully overturned the earlier decision.

Bennathan said that what Coskun did was “clearly political” and “not aimed at a person.” There was nothing wrong with protesting outside a consulate. The fact that he was alone made him far less intimidating to the public. It was daylight. It was a short protest. The reaction of a couple of extremists shouldn’t taint how people saw Coskun’s act of protest; in fact, the judge added, others also witnessed the protest and just… walked on by. They clearly weren’t scared of him.

In short, what Coskun did wasn’t disorderly at all, so he never deserved to be punished for it. It’s the right decision after an overblown reaction. Had the blasphemy charge stood, it would have been a green light to extremists that anyone who offends your faith is fair game for an attack.

Bennathan wrote:

There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.

We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us.

The good news here is that the decision will likely prevent government lawyers from pursuing similar cases in the future. (The head of the Free Speech Union used the decision to make clear that because this isn’t a criminal offense, it’s also okay to say “transwomen aren’t women.” Which you absolutely can if you’re a complete asshole. But, yes, that shouldn’t be criminal either.)

Stephen Evans, the head of the National Secular Society, also celebrated the decision:

“Today’s decision reaffirms the vital principle that free speech protects the right to offend, shock, or disturb – even when it challenges deeply held religious beliefs. England and Wales rightly abolished its blasphemy laws more than a decade ago. This ruling helps ensure they are not reintroduced by stealth under the guise of public order, and that our commitment to free speech remains strong.

“Crucially, the judgment also draws a clear line between attacks on individuals and criticism of ideas. This distinction is essential to a healthy democracy, and this case should serve as a turning point for it to be better understood and reflected in public policy.”

A spokesperson for Humanists UK echoed those thoughts while somewhat distancing the group from Coskun himself:

‘We are delighted and relieved to see Hamit’s conviction overturned. While we do not agree with the appellant’s prejudicial views about Muslims, he did not express these at the time of the act for which he was previously charged and the judge has now found he shouldn’t have been convicted.

‘We are concerned that this case has highlighted gaps in the law that could allow vital free speech protections to fall by the wayside. We will continue to campaign to uphold the fullest freedom of expression laws limited only to prevent harm to others.’

Coskun had previously said that, win or lose, he planned to go on a national tour “burning Korans in other cities.” Given that he’s previously expressed support for “far-Right, anti-Islam militant” Tommy Robinson—the UK’s version of Laura Loomer—and said of Robinson “I love him,” going on a book-burning tour may indeed be Coskun’s next publicity stunt.

But just because he’s not a hero doesn’t mean his actions outside the consulate were criminal. The entire idea of free speech is admitting that a deeply flawed provocateur whose views about Muslims are ignorant and cruel still has the right to express his beliefs. The fact that he was punished at all for possibly offending some sensibilities was always ludicrous. No one deserves to be punished for alleged (or purposeful) blasphemy. Full stop. The alternative is a society where only the approved and the polite are allowed to speak.

That’s why this ruling matters. If the lower court’s verdict had stood, it would have told the world that England—which formally abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008—was willing to resurrect them to appease religious outrage. It would have said that a violent response to speech justifies censoring the speaker, rather than condemning the violence. The High Court’s reversal reaffirmed a truth we must defend: freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, and no religion or ideology deserves immunity from scrutiny or insult.

The fight here wasn’t about defending Coskun’s character. It was about defending the fragile boundary between ideas and individuals, and ensuring that in a free society, no single holy book can function as a gag order on everyone else.

---