A 50-year-old man has been fined after being found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence for burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London.
Hamit Coskun carried out the act on 13 February in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, while shouting abusive remarks about Islam. On Monday, Westminster Magistrates' Court found him guilty of the offence as well as of using disorderly behaviour. He was fined £240 and ordered to pay a £96 statutory surcharge.
‘Provocative and taunting’ behaviour
District Judge John McGarva described Coskun’s actions as “provocative and taunting,” adding that he believed Coskun harboured a “deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers.”
Coskun, originally from Turkey and of Kurdish and Armenian heritage, had travelled from his home in Derby to carry out the protest. The court heard that he burned the Quran at around 2 p.m., accompanied by inflammatory language aimed at the religion and its followers.
The judge rejected Coskun’s claim that his protest was solely directed at the religion and not at its adherents, concluding that his actions were motivated at least in part by hatred.
Political protest or hate crime?
Coskun had posted on social media that his protest was aimed at the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accusing him of turning Turkey into a base for radical Islamists and trying to impose a Sharia regime. Prosecutors argued, however, that the act crossed into hate speech.
Despite Coskun’s defence that he was exercising his right to political expression, the judge noted that comments made during police interviews — some of which were Islamophobic — contributed to the decision that the incident went beyond protected speech.
Reaction and planned appeal
Coskun labelled the conviction “an assault on free speech” and vowed to appeal. Humanists UK expressed concern, arguing that the threshold for such prosecutions is too low and risks chilling legitimate criticism of religion.
“This risks reintroducing blasphemy laws through the back door,” a spokesperson said, referring to their formal abolition in 2008.
Judge McGarva clarified that this case was not about blasphemy laws but about public order, and that burning a religious book is not inherently disorderly unless accompanied by other inflammatory conduct, which he found to be the case here.
Support and political fallout
Coskun’s legal costs are being covered by the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union, both of which have pledged to fight the verdict through the appeals process, potentially taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Free Speech Union commented: “Religious tolerance doesn’t mean enforcing blasphemy codes on non-believers.”
Conservative politician Kemi Badenoch also weighed in, calling the ruling dangerous. “De facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin,” she said. “Freedom of belief — and freedom not to believe — are inalienable rights.”
Downing Street declined to comment on the specifics of the case but reaffirmed that the UK has no blasphemy laws and has no plans to introduce any. Photo by Moritz 2011, Wikimedia commons.