Free Speech or Blasphemy? UK Man Fined for Quran Burning as Critics Warn of Legal Overreach

by Worthy News Europe Bureau Staff

(Worthy News) – In a case that has reignited debate over freedom of speech and religion in the United Kingdom, a British court fined Turkish-born filmmaker Hamit Coskun for burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London earlier this year–an act prosecutors labeled a “religiously aggravated public order offense.”

Coskun, a 50-year-old Kurdish-Armenian documentarian who was once imprisoned by Syria’s Assad regime while filming a documentary, was ordered to pay a £240 fine and a £96 surcharge. The court found that his actions–burning the Quran while shouting phrases such as “Islam is religion of terrorism”–were motivated by hostility toward Muslims and caused likely harassment or distress to those who witnessed it.

Critics, including civil liberties groups and commentators, say the ruling effectively reinstates a blasphemy law in the UK–one that appears selectively enforced. “England now has a blasphemy law,” wrote Spectator columnist David Shipley, arguing that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and District Judge John McGarva conflated criticism of a religion with an attack on its followers, thereby treating Islam as a protected legal entity.

Coskun’s defense cited his complex background and political history, including persecution in the Middle East. But the court emphasized the offensive nature of his language and actions. The incident was followed by an assault on Coskun by a bystander, Moussa Kadri, who has since pleaded guilty.

The prosecution originally charged Coskun under the Crime and Disorder Act with the intention of causing distress to “the religious institution of Islam,” a phrase legal experts said dangerously personifies a belief system in a way incompatible with British law. “Under English law this is nonsensical,” said Shipley, noting that only persons–not ideologies–can be legally harassed.

The verdict mirrors a previous case involving a mentally unstable man who desecrated a Quran during a memorial for victims of the 2017 Manchester terror attack. In that instance, the judge also condemned the act as unacceptable, stating: “This is a tolerant country, but we just do not tolerate this behavior.”

Free speech advocates warn that the UK’s existing public order framework–particularly provisions of the 1986 Public Order Act and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act–have become vehicles for quasi-blasphemy enforcement. “While the facts of the case are complex,” Humanists UK said in a statement, “we believe the judgment means that the bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low.”

Originally designed to protect public safety, these laws have evolved to criminalize behavior deemed likely to provoke disorder–particularly when it comes to Islam. The 1998 Act’s expansion to cover “religiously aggravated” offenses in 2001 further opened the door, critics argue, to selective prosecution based on the potential volatility of a group’s response rather than the legality of the act itself.

Observers say the issue isn’t just about Islam, but about the UK’s lack of a codified free speech guarantee. With no constitutional protection equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment, British courts operate in a legal gray zone–one critics say is increasingly being shaped by fears of public backlash and selective outrage.

As one Humanists UK spokesperson put it: “We unequivocally condemn religious hatred, but selectively prosecuting offensive speech in this manner is a dangerous precedent. It’s not a blasphemy law–it’s potentially something worse.”

Latest Worthy News