If you thought blasphemy laws had been officially abolished in Britain, think again. A recent case illustrates that they are still alive and well, albeit in inchoate form. It’s Blasphemy 2.0, administered through a legal and linguistic sleight-of-hand.
Hamit Coskun’s recent conviction is a chilling reversal of free expression’s historic victory. It is a shocking example of the state’s overweening power and capriciousness, implying a reinstatement of these illiberal and anachronistic regulations, which were repealed from the statute books in England and Wales in 2008.
After he set fire to a Quran while protesting outside the Turkish consulate in London, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charged Coskun with a ‘religiously aggravated public order offence’. A Turkish-born atheist of Kurdish-Armenian heritage, Coskun shouted ‘fuck Islam’ and ‘Islam is a religion of terrorism’ as he held the flaming holy book aloft in Knightsbridge, on 13 February this year. District judge John McGarva agreed with the CPS and convicted Coskun, ordering him to pay a fine.
This case ought to alarm supporters of free speech, as the British state is essentially enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws. The National Secular Society, which supported Coskun alongside the Free Speech Union, has described the verdict as ‘a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws’.
Islam traditionally does not emphasise tolerance towards dissent, and as the number of Muslims in Britain has increased notably over recent decades, demands for censorship of material deemed offensive to its adherents have also intensified. A 2024 poll revealed that 52% of British Muslims support ‘making it illegal to show a picture or cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed’ within the next twenty years. Just ask the Batley Grammar School teacher who is still in hiding after he showed an illustration of Mohammed in a religious studies lesson what such a future would look like.
In Britain, as in many parts of the world, offending Islam can incur significant, sometimes fatal, consequences. Coskun’s protest was fraught with danger. As he burned the Quran, he was assaulted by two men, including a Muslim man carrying a knife, who spat at him and kicked him while shouting ‘Burning the Koran? It’s my religion! You don’t burn the Koran.’ In his ruling, McGarva stated this as evidence of Coskun’s guilt. ‘That the conduct was disorderly is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people,’ said McGarva. This is nothing but victim blaming. According to this argument, those who engage in protest against Islam are at fault, not those who respond violently to such protests.
Considerable interpretive efforts were necessary to establish that Coskun’s actions were driven by animosity toward Muslims. Coskun indicated that his issue is with the religion, not its followers. McGarva disagreed, citing Coskun’s argument that ‘Islam is spread by violence’ and his noting of Islam’s disdain for non-believers’ rights, among other things. Nonetheless, the judge determined that there was no distinction between his definition of Islam and hatred for Muslims. Through this circular reasoning, hatred of Islam has become ipso facto hatred of two billion Muslims. (And even if Coskun’s opinions were bigoted, that would not change the fact that this case was a flagrant attack on free speech.)
In liberal-democratic Western nations such as ours, you should be free to hate, ridicule, or satirise any religion. Hate is completely subjective. It is crucial to reconsider entrusting the judicial arm of the state with the task of defining and regulating what constitutes ‘hateful’ speech, given that our emotions are inherently subjective and deeply tied to our speech codes. This case starkly illustrates the dangers of enforcing the subjective, leading us into a Kafka-esque nightmare in which individual freedoms are sacrificed on the basis of feelings—and the interpretation thereof.
This goes deeper than a selective interpretation of Coskun’s words. It was his actual words that were a problem. The judge also appears to have an issue with freedom of assembly. In explaining his culpability, McGarva continues: ‘What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.’ That the protest occurred outside of a building potentially full of Muslims is of no relevance. When you legislate to protect a religion from mockery or criticism, it accords adherents of that religion special treatment. It warns people against being offensive or provocative. But the whole point of protesting is to make yourself heard, and being provocative or offensive is a time-honoured way of doing that.
The implications of this ruling create a disturbing precedent. It establishes what National Secular Society Chief Executive Stephen Evans describes as a ‘heckler’s veto’, meaning that people who are offended by derogatory language regarding their religion can voice their objections to the police, who can arrest the offender (‘offender’ in this case having a sadly double meaning).
Despite the threat to his life, Coskun refuses to give in. He remains steadfast in his protest despite the £240 fine. He plans to go on a nationwide Quran-burning tour. I believe we will see him and numerous others brought before more judges should an armed member of the public become ‘alarmed or distressed’ and decide to take matters into their own hands.
Coskun has been treated appallingly. Not only was he attacked, but he is now at risk of deportation. Coskun is seeking asylum in the UK, claiming persecution in his native Turkey. Now, because of this ridiculous case, he has been convicted before his claim could be processed. Given the increasing Islamist influence in Turkey, Coskun’s very life might now have been put at risk by a British judge. In Britain, the revival of de facto blasphemy laws now places ex-Muslims and Muslim dissidents who align with liberal values at greater risk than ever before. Don’t believe the sophists who say this was about public order rather than burning a Quran—‘religiously aggravated public order offence’ is little more than a cover for a new regime of blasphemy laws.
This should never have reached a court of law. Thankfully, Coskun is appealing the ruling. For the sake of free expression, this conviction must be overturned. The sole positive takeaway from this case is that it showed the state’s readiness to give preferential treatment to a specific religion. In helping to expose this, Coskun has done a great service as well as demonstrated great integrity and courage.
Related reading
Coskun’s conviction is a surrender to Islamic blasphemy codes, by Stephen Evans
The burning question: are blasphemy laws back? by Stephen Evans
Image of the week: Hamit Coskun, victim of a new form of blasphemy law? by Daniel James Sharp
Kant vs Tahir Ali: why desecration should not be outlawed, by Daniel Herbert
The power of outrage, by Tehreem Azeem
Salwan Momika and the right to burn books, by Noel Yaxley
The perils of dropping a book, by Noel Yaxley
The need to rekindle irreverence for Islam in Muslim thought, by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid
The Galileo of Pakistan? Interview with Professor Sher Ali, by Ehtesham Hassan
10 years since the Charlie Hebdo attack: a message from the Freethinker, by Daniel James Sharp
Charlie Hebdo: An open letter to the free world from a freethinker, by Khadija Khan
Storm over a tea-cup? The ‘Mug-Gate’ teacher speaks out, by Matt Lovell
Image of the week: ‘Moses Getting a Back View’ (1882), by Daniel James Sharp
Britain’s blasphemy heritage, by David Nash
Secularism and the struggle for free speech, by Stephen Evans
Britain’s liberal imam: Interview with Taj Hargey, by Emma Park
Your email address will not be published. Comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. Required fields are marked *
Donate