Court declares “right to offend” fundamental in liberal democracy as protesters’ religious criticism deemed lawful
A major victory for free speech advocates emerged yesterday when appeals court judge overturned the conviction of a man prosecuted for burning a Koran outside London’s Turkish consulate.
Hamit Coskun, 51, had been convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offense and fined £240 in June after he set fire to the Islamic text while shouting anti-Islam slogans in February. His acquittal on appeal has sparked nationwide debate about the boundaries of free expression in Britain.
Mr Justice Bennathan, presiding at Southwark Crown Court, delivered a forceful defense of free speech principles in his ruling. “While burning a Koran may deeply upset many Muslims, the criminal law doesn’t exist merely to prevent offense,” he stated. “In our liberal democracy, we cherish the right to express controversial views without state interference. The cost of this freedom is tolerating speech that upsets, offends, or shocks us.”
Coskun, who is of Kurdish and Armenian heritage, explained his protest targeted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government, which he characterized as abandoning secularism to become an “Islamist regime.”
The case took a violent turn when Moussa Kadri, 59, attacked Coskun with a knife during the demonstration. Kadri later told authorities he was “protecting his religion.”
The Free Speech Union, which provided financial backing for Coskun’s legal challenge, celebrated the outcome. Director Lord Young argued that upholding the conviction would have sent a dangerous message: “Religious fundamentalists would learn they could enforce blasphemy codes through violence, making protesters guilty of causing disorder simply by being attacked.”
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, emphasized the political nature of Coskun’s actions. “This was lawful political dissent. Whether one approves of his methods is irrelevant—what matters is that it wasn’t criminal.”
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, while personally disagreeing with Coskun’s actions, supported the ruling, arguing the prosecution represented an attempt to resurrect blasphemy law through indirect means.
Following his vindication, Coskun expressed relief: “Despite troubling developments, I remain free to educate the British public about my beliefs.”
The ruling has been hailed by secularist organizations including Humanists UK as essential protection for religious criticism and political protest in an increasingly diverse society.RetryClaude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.
