A man convicted of burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London has successfully overturned his conviction in a case that sparked debate about free speech and blasphemy laws.
Hamit Coskun was found guilty earlier this year of a religiously aggravated public order offence after shouting obscenities whilst holding the flaming religious text aloft outside the Turkish consulate in England’s capital city in February.
Before travelling to London, the 51-year-old wrote posts on social media detailing his plan and saying it was to protest the Islamist government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The court previously heard that Coskun claimed Erdogan “has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime”.
With the backing of campaigners, Coskun won an appeal against his conviction at Southwark Crown Court today. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian and lives in England, had his legal case funded by the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union.
His appeal case was also attended this week by shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, who said whilst he did not agree with what Coskun had done, he did not believe it was a crime.
Campaigners had argued the prosecution and conviction was akin to blasphemy being reintroduced by the back door, inadvertently, by the court service. Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
Reacting to the news of the successful conviction appeal, Mr Jenrick labelled it an important victory for free speech. Writing on X, the Conservative MP stated that Hamit Coskun had been cleared.
“I didn’t like what Mr Coskun did, burning a religious text was not pleasant. But it was also never criminal,” Mr Jenrick said.
“So, this is an important victory for free speech. Parliament voted to abolish blasphemy laws 20 years ago.”
The shadow justice secretary added that it was disgraceful that the authorities attempted to recreate blasphemy laws by the back door.
The National Secular Society, which helped fund Coskun’s legal defence, has long campaigned against what it sees as attempts to effectively reintroduce blasphemy protections through the use of public order legislation. The organisation argues that the right to criticise and mock religious ideas is fundamental to free expression in a democratic society.
The Free Speech Union, which also supported the appeal, similarly contends that individuals should be free to express even offensive views about religion without facing criminal sanction, provided they do not incite violence or hatred against people.
The original conviction had raised concerns among civil liberties groups that public order laws were being used to prosecute actions that would historically have fallen under blasphemy legislation. Critics argued that this effectively created a de facto blasphemy law despite Parliament’s decision to abolish such offences.
The case also highlighted tensions around protests targeting religious symbols and texts. Similar incidents involving Quran burnings in other European countries have sparked diplomatic tensions and public disorder concerns, with some nations introducing specific legislation to prevent such acts.
Coskun’s motivation for the protest centred on his opposition to Turkish President Erdogan’s government, which he views as increasingly authoritarian and Islamist in nature. Turkey has seen significant political changes under Erdogan’s leadership, with critics accusing him of rolling back secular principles established by the republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
The Turkish government has not yet commented publicly on the appeal court’s decision. Relations between Britain and Turkey have at times been strained over issues including human rights concerns and the treatment of Kurdish minorities.
The successful appeal means Coskun’s criminal record for the offence will be cleared. The decision could have implications for future cases involving the burning or desecration of religious texts, potentially making it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions under public order legislation.
Legal experts suggest the ruling reinforces the principle that whilst offensive speech about religion may be distasteful, it does not necessarily constitute a criminal offence in the absence of threats or incitement to violence against individuals.
The case underscores ongoing debates about the limits of free expression in multicultural societies and the extent to which religious sensibilities should be protected by law. Whilst many faith groups argue that acts desecrating sacred texts constitute hate speech, civil liberties campaigners maintain that ideas and beliefs, as opposed to people, should be subject to criticism and even mockery.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
