Hamit Coskun fined £240 after judge rules his actions were ‘highly provocative’ as free speech campaigners warn of ‘backdoor blasphemy laws’
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate has been found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence – despite being violently attacked with a knife during his protest.
Hamit Coskun, 50, was convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court this afternoon after shouting “f**k Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism” as he held the flaming holy book aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on February 13.
The controversial verdict has sparked immediate outrage from free speech campaigners who warned it signals a “concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes” and the effective return of blasphemy laws through the back door.
JUDGE: ‘DEEP-SEATED HATRED’
In a damning 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.
The judge went further, declaring: “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.”
Coskun was fined £240 plus a £96 surcharge – a total of £336 – which will be paid by the Free Speech Union and National Secular Society who funded his defence.
ATTACKED BY KNIFEMAN
In shocking scenes captured on video during the February protest, Coskun was:
- Approached by a man wielding a knife who slashed at him
- Forced to use the burning Koran to defend himself
- Chased until he fell to the ground
- Kicked and spat on while on the floor
- Told by his attacker: “Burning the Koran? It’s my religion! You don’t burn the Koran”
The attacker, Moussa Kadri, 59, was separately charged with causing actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon.
Despite being the victim of a violent assault, it was Coskun who ended up in the dock.
BLASPHEMY LAWS RETURN?
The conviction has triggered fierce criticism from civil liberties groups who say it marks the death of free speech in Britain.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, declared: “The outcome of this case is a significant blow to freedom of expression and signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.”
He warned: “The conviction of Mr Coskun on the grounds that his actions were ‘likely’ to cause harassment, alarm, or distress suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws.”
The Free Speech Union, which also funded Coskun’s defence, 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.”
WHO IS HAMIT COSKUN?
The convicted protester is:
- An atheist of half Kurdish, half Armenian heritage
- A political refugee who fled Turkey after being imprisoned for almost a decade
- A long-time critic of Turkish President Erdogan’s “Islamist government”
- Someone who believed Britain was a country where “freedom prevailed”
Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against President Erdogan, who he claimed “has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a sharia regime”.
CHARGES CHANGED AFTER BACKLASH
The case took a bizarre turn when prosecutors were forced to rewrite the charges after initially accusing Coskun of harassing the “religious institution of Islam.
Following intervention from the National Secular Society and human rights lawyer Akua Reindorf KC, who said the charge was “plainly defective,” the CPS admitted it had “incorrectly applied” the wording.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick had also criticised the original charge, saying: “There are many things in our society that people find offensive, but that doesn’t make them criminal.
BLASPHEMY LAWS ABOLISHED… OR NOT?
Coskun’s lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, had argued the prosecution was effectively trying to revive blasphemy laws, which were:
- Abolished in England and Wales in 2008
- Abolished in Scotland in 2021
- Still technically exist in Northern Ireland but are rarely enforced
She told the court: “However offensive Muslims may find the behaviour and beliefs of the defendant, he’s entitled to have them, he’s entitled to express them.
THE LAW USED
Coskun was convicted under:
- Section 5 of the Public Order Act – using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
- Section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – making it religiously aggravated
The maximum sentence for the offence is a fine of £1,000.
‘I THOUGHT THIS WAS A FREE COUNTRY’
Before his trial, Coskun had said: “Encountering such treatment in a country like England, which I truly believed to be a place where freedom prevailed, was a real shock to me.”
He maintained he was protesting peacefully and that burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression.
During the trial, his lawyer pointed out that many people throughout history have been hostile to other religions, citing feminists who oppose Catholicism as having a “sacrosanct right” to express such views.
APPEAL PLANNED
The National Secular Society and Free Speech Union have confirmed they will:
- Pay Coskun’s fine and court surcharge
- Consider appealing the verdict
- Continue supporting his case
The Free Speech Union warned: “Cases like Hamit’s show just how fragile that freedom has become — and how urgently it must be defended.
VIOLENT RESPONSE
Prosecutor Philip McGhee had insisted the case was about “disorderly conduct” not the act of burning the Koran itself, claiming it didn’t represent a restriction on criticising religion.
But critics point out that Coskun was the one who ended up being violently assaulted – yet he’s the only one convicted so far.
Defence lawyer Thorne had told the court: “He was calm, he was calmly with a raised voice saying ‘Islam is the religion of terrorism’ and then what happened was he was abused and violently attacked.”
THE PRECEDENT
Free speech advocates warn this conviction sets a dangerous precedent where:
- Religious texts cannot be burned in protest
- “Likely” offence is enough for conviction
- Violent responses to protests are rewarded
- Public order laws become de facto blasphemy laws
As one campaigner put it: “Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn’t require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers.”
The case has reignited fierce debate about the balance between religious sensitivities and fundamental freedoms in multicultural Britain.
