Key Points:
- Hamit Coskun, convicted for burning a Quran in protest, has successfully appealed, with the court emphasizing that free speech includes the right to offend.
- The ruling prevents the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through public order offenses, a concern raised by campaigners.
- While celebrated by free speech advocates, reactions from Muslim communities appear limited, with some voices advocating tolerance.
- Evidence suggests this decision reinforces democratic principles, though it highlights ongoing tensions between expression and religious sensitivities.
Background of the Incident
On February 13, 2025, Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old of Turkish-Kurdish-Armenian descent, burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London as a protest against President Erdogan’s regime and radical Islamism. He shouted phrases like “f*** Islam” and “Islam is the religion of terrorism,” framing it as political dissent. The act provoked an assault by Moussa Kadri, who attacked him with a knife but received a suspended sentence.
The Appeal and Ruling
Initially convicted in June 2025 of a religiously aggravated public order offense and fined £240, Coskun appealed with support from the Free Speech Union (FSU) and National Secular Society (NSS). On October 10, 2025, Southwark Crown Court overturned the conviction, ruling that free expression protects offensive acts. Justice Joel Bennathan stated there is no blasphemy law in the UK and that the law doesn’t prevent upset.
Reactions and Implications
Free speech groups hailed it as a victory for free speech against “backdoor blasphemy.” Politician Robert Jenrick supported the outcome, noting disagreement with the act but affirming its legality. Muslim reactions seem subdued, with commentator Nervana Mahmoud suggesting tolerance could reduce such incidents. The case may influence future protests, emphasizing tolerance in diverse societies.
For more details, see the full judgment at the Judiciary UK.
In a decision that underscores the UK’s commitment to freedom of expression, Hamit Coskun’s conviction for burning a Quran during a protest has been overturned. This ruling, delivered on October 10, 2025, at Southwark Crown Court, has sparked discussions on the balance between free speech and religious sensitivities in modern Britain. Campaigners from organizations like the Free Speech Union and National Secular Society have celebrated it as a crucial safeguard against the creeping return of blasphemy laws, abolished in England and Wales in 2008. However, the case also highlights potential divisions, though immediate reactions from Muslim communities appear measured, with no widespread condemnation reported in major sources.
The Protest and Initial Conviction
Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old man born in Turkey and of half-Kurdish, half-Armenian heritage, staged his protest on February 13, 2025, in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, outside the Turkish consulate. He publicly announced his intentions on social media, describing the Quran as a text promoting terror and criticizing Islam as a “terrorist ideology.” During the act, he burned the book while shouting expletives and accusations against Islam, explicitly linking it to his opposition to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s policies, which he accused of fostering radical Islamism and attempting to impose Sharia law.
The protest escalated when Moussa Kadri, 59, confronted Coskun, threatening to kill him and slashing at him with a knife after retrieving it from nearby. Kadri, who claimed he was defending his faith, later pleaded guilty to assault and possession of a bladed article, receiving a 20-week suspended sentence on September 23, 2025. CCTV footage of the attack played a significant role in the proceedings, ironically used in the initial trial to argue Coskun’s actions caused disorder.
In June 2025, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, District Judge John McGarva convicted Coskun under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for disorderly behavior aggravated by religious hostility. The judge described Coskun’s actions as “provocative and taunting,” citing a “deep-seated hatred of Islam” based on his shouts, social media posts, and police interview statements generalizing about Muslims. Coskun was fined £240 plus a £96 surcharge.
The Appeal Process
Supported by the NSS and FSU, Coskun appealed, arguing his protest was protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards freedom of expression. Campaigners criticized the initial ruling as effectively reinstating blasphemy via public order laws. The appeal was heard on October 9, 2025, with judgment from Mr. Justice Joel Bennathan and lay justices on October 10.
In the ruling, Justice Bennathan affirmed: “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.” The court distinguished hostility toward a faith from hatred of its adherents, noting the protest’s political context and location did not constitute criminal disorder.
Diverse Reactions
The decision elicited strong support from free speech advocates. FSU Director Toby Young expressed delight, warning that upholding the conviction could encourage vigilante enforcement of religious codes. NSS Chief Executive Stephen Evans called it an “important victory for free speech,” stressing that offensive political dissent isn’t criminal. Humanists UK welcomed the outcome, concerned about its chilling effect on ex-Muslims.
Conservative politician Robert Jenrick, attending the hearing, disagreed with the act but affirmed it wasn’t criminal, cautioning against backdoor blasphemy. Coskun himself felt reassured, having come to England to speak freely about radical Islam’s dangers.
On social media platform X, reactions were predominantly positive, with users like Tommy Robinson calling it “common sense” and others labeling Coskun a “hero.” Notably, Muslim commentator Nervana Mahmoud endorsed the verdict, arguing that accepting offensive speech as legal might decrease Quran burnings over time.
Searches for broader Muslim reactions revealed limited immediate criticism. No major statements from organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain decrying the ruling appeared in available sources, though the act itself remains deeply offensive to many Muslims, as acknowledged by the court. Some counterarguments from the prosecution highlighted Coskun’s hostility, but critics worried the win might embolden provocations, while supporters stressed democratic tolerance. The Crown Prosecution Service may appeal further.
Broader Context and Implications
This case echoes global Quran-burning incidents that often ignite international tensions, but in the UK, it reaffirms post-2008 standards where blasphemy isn’t criminalized. It could shape future prosecutions, particularly for those from religious backgrounds critiquing faith, by clarifying that post-incident prejudices don’t lower conviction thresholds. The ruling’s full impact will emerge as debates continue, but it serves as a reminder of robust free speech protections amid diverse viewpoints.
| Timeline of Events | Date | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Protest Incident | February 13, 2025 | Coskun burns the Quran outside the Turkish consulate, shouts anti-Islam phrases, attacked by Kadri. |
| Initial Conviction | June 2025 | Convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court; fined £240 + surcharge. |
| Kadri’s Sentencing | September 23, 2025 | Coskun burns the Quran outside Turkish consulate, shouts anti-Islam phrases, attacked by Kadri. |
| Appeal Hearing | October 9, 2025 | Arguments presented at Southwark Crown Court. |
| Appeal Decision | October 10, 2025 | Conviction overturned, emphasizing free speech rights. |
| Key Figures and Organizations | Role | Stance |
|---|---|---|
| Hamit Coskunhttps://exmuslims.org/ | Protester/Appellant | Defended as a political protest; relieved by ruling. |
| Justice Joel Bennathan | Presiding Judge | Ruled in favor of free expression, citing no blasphemy law. |
| Free Speech Union (FSU) | Supporter | Defended as a political protest; relieved by the ruling. |
| National Secular Society (NSS) | Supporter | Celebrated as a victory for free speech; funded appeal. |
| Robert Jenrick | Politician | Supported the outcome despite disagreeing with the act. |
| Nervana Mahmoud | Muslim Commentator | Endorsed ruling, suggesting tolerance reduces incidents. |
This comprehensive overview draws from multiple sources to provide a balanced perspective, acknowledging the complexity of free speech in a multicultural context.https://theinfohatch.com/dearborn-mosque-dispute-a-clash-over-sound-divide/