Man Convicted Over Koran-Burning in London Says Ruling Is Assault on Free Speech

Epoch Times

3 days ago

A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London has branded his prosecution 'an assault on free speech' as campaigners argued the ruling 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.'
Hamit Coskun was found guilty on Monday of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted '[Expletive] Islam,' 'Islam is religion of terrorism,' and 'Koran is burning' while holding the flaming religious text aloft earlier this year.
The 50-year-old had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and that he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.'
Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,' motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam,' contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986.
Turkey-born Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands to carry out the act in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on Feb. 13 and in court argued he had protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression.
His legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned.'
Related Stories
6/2/2025
5/29/2025
In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said: 'This decision is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam.
'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.'
Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, posting on social media platform X, said the decision was 'wrong' and 'revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed.'
McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law.'
In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Koran are 'not necessarily disorderly,' but added, 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.'
The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers,' based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers.'
The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct.
'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Koran very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language.
'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.'
Hamit Coskun leaving Westminster Magistrates' Court after being convicted and fined, in London on June 2, 2025.
Aaron Chown/PA
NSS Chief Executive Stephen Evans described the verdict as 'a significant blow to freedom of expression' and one which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.'
Evans said the conviction 'suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws.'
He added: 'This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive.
'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.'
An FSU spokesperson said they will take the case 'all the way to the European Court of Human Rights' if necessary.
They added: 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.'
Humanists UK said that while the 'defendant's views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them,' he had not expressed 'anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims' meaning in their view the ruling 'does raise concerns.'
The organisation said the 'bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low' and warned public order legislation must not be 'used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression.'
In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran.
Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a [expletive] idiot.'
The court heard that the man approached Coskun allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, chase him, and spit at and kick him.
The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.'
Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime,' prosecutors said.