Sir Keir Starmer has been dragged into a controversial court case after lawyers for a man charged with burning a Koran plan to cite the Prime Minister’s previous defence of a flag-burning protester to support their client’s right to peaceful demonstration.
Hamit Coskun, 50, who faces charges of disorderly behaviour after setting a Koran alight, will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court with his legal team arguing he was exercising his human rights – using Starmer’s own past arguments to make their case.
The extraordinary development has emerged after researchers discovered that Starmer, then a human rights barrister, defended a protester who defaced an American flag during anti-war demonstrations in 2001, arguing for their right to peaceful protest.
Coskun, who plans to plead not guilty, has told supporters he intends to burn Korans in other cities, claiming protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the same defence Starmer once championed.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” Coskun’s lawyer Michael Patterson said. “If burning a flag is protected speech, why not a book? We’ll be citing Mr Starmer’s own arguments from 2001.”
The revelation has put the Prime Minister in an uncomfortable position, with critics accusing him of double standards and questioning whether his views on free expression have conveniently shifted now he’s in Number 10.
Conservative MP James Henderson said: “This perfectly illustrates Starmer’s hypocrisy. As a lawyer, he defended flag burning as free speech. Now as PM, will he support prosecuting someone for burning a book? He can’t have it both ways.”
The 2001 case saw Starmer successfully argue that destroying national symbols, while offensive to many, fell within legitimate protest rights. Court transcripts show him arguing that “democracy must tolerate offensive acts of symbolic speech.”
Coskun was arrested after burning a Koran outside a mosque in East London, with police charging him under public order legislation for behaviour likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress.
The 50-year-old builder told reporters: “If Keir Starmer could defend burning America’s flag, he should defend my right to burn any book I choose. That’s what freedom means.”
His planned protests in Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford have sparked security concerns, with police warning of potential counter-demonstrations and community tensions.
“This is deliberately inflammatory behaviour designed to provoke,” said Imam Mohammed Hassan. There’s a difference between free speech and inciting hatred against Muslims.
But Coskun’s legal team argue the law must be applied consistently, regardless of which symbols or texts are involved.
“The Prime Minister once eloquently argued that offensive protest is the price of freedom,” Patterson noted. “We’ll be asking the court to apply that same principle here.”
The case has reignited debates about the limits of free expression, with civil liberties groups finding themselves in the awkward position of potentially having to defend actions they find repugnant.
“Freedom of expression must protect unpopular and offensive speech, or it means nothing,” said Liberty spokesperson Sarah Chen. “But that doesn’t mean we condone or support such actions.”
Downing Street has refused to comment on the specific case, with a spokesperson saying only: “The Prime Minister respects the independence of the courts and won’t comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
But the silence hasn’t stopped questions about Starmer’s consistency, with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage tweeting: “Starmer the lawyer: burn whatever you like! Starmer the PM: arrest him! Two-tier Keir strikes again.
The Muslim Council of Britain warned that Coskun’s actions were “designed to sow division and hatred” and called for the full force of the law to be applied.
Burning sacred texts is not legitimate protest – it’s an attack on entire communities,” said spokesperson Zara Mahmood. “We expect the authorities to take this seriously.”
Legal experts say the case highlights the complex balance between free speech and public order, with different standards seemingly applied to different forms of protest.
The law shouldn’t change based on which symbols are targeted,” explained Professor David Williams of King’s College London. “If flag burning is protected, the same logic could apply to book burning, however distasteful.”
The revelation about Starmer’s past has prompted Labour MPs to distance themselves from any comparison between the cases.
Burning a flag in protest against war is entirely different from burning religious texts to intimidate communities,” insisted backbencher Sarah Morrison. “Context matters.”
But critics argue that’s exactly the kind of subjective judgment that undermines free speech principles.
You can’t pick and choose which offensive acts get protection based on whether you agree with the politics,” said free speech campaigner Marcus Webb. “That’s not how rights work.”
The case has also exposed tensions within Labour, with some MPs privately expressing concern about the optics of prosecuting Coskun while their leader once defended similar acts.
It looks terrible,” one Labour MP admitted anonymously. We’re supposed to be the party of human rights, but now we’re prosecuting protest because we don’t like the target?
Police sources defended the charges, arguing that burning religious texts outside places of worship crosses the line from protest to intimidation.
This isn’t about free speech – it’s about preventing disorder and protecting communities from targeted harassment,” one senior officer explained.
Coskun remains defiant, telling supporters he’s prepared to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
“They can’t silence me,” he declared. “If Starmer won his case for flag burning, I’ll win mine for book burning. That’s what equality before the law means.
The case has prompted soul-searching among civil liberties advocates about whether their principles require defending acts they find morally reprehensible.
This is the hardest test of free speech principles,” admitted human rights lawyer Jennifer Walsh. “Do we defend expression we despise? History says we must, but it’s never easy.
As the court date approaches, security services are preparing for potential unrest, with far-right groups planning to support Coskun while Muslim organisations organise counter-protests.
We’re planning for all eventualities,” a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said. “Public safety is our priority.”
The controversy has even reached international attention, with American free speech advocates pointing to the case as evidence of Britain’s “confused” approach to civil liberties.
“In the US, both flag and book burning are protected speech,” noted First Amendment lawyer Robert Chen. “Britain seems to protect only the speech it approves of.”
For Starmer, the case represents an unwelcome reminder of positions taken before political power required more nuanced judgments.
It’s the classic radical lawyer turned establishment PM problem,” observed political commentator Rachel Hayes. “Your past principles have an awkward habit of returning to haunt you.”
As Westminster Magistrates’ Court prepares for what could be a landmark case, the question remains: will Starmer’s own arguments from 2001 be used to defend actions he likely now deplores?
The Prime Minister who once championed offensive protest may find his words coming back to burn him – perhaps as thoroughly as the flags and books at the centre of this incendiary debate.
