The prosecution of Hamit Coskun, a man charged with burning a Qur'an outside the Turkish consulate in London, has sparked a heated legal debate regarding the implications for freedom of speech in the UK. During the ongoing trial, Coskun pleaded not guilty to a public order offence allegedly motivated by hostility towards Islam. His actions, which included shouting inflammatory statements such as “fuck Islam” and “Islam is a religion of terrorism,” raise significant questions about the boundaries of free expression and the potential for the reintroduction of blasphemy laws in Britain.
Defence barrister Katy Thorne KC argued that prosecuting Coskun is akin to re-establishing blasphemy statutes, which were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland by 2021. Thorne asserted that such a prosecution would equate to treating the Qur'an as a specially protected object, thereby criminalising criticism of Islam in a manner reminiscent of historical blasphemy laws. She emphasised that citizens must retain the right to express their beliefs—religious or secular—without fear of legal repercussions, advocating for the highest protection of freedom of speech in what she described as a political protest against Turkish government policies.
The implications extend beyond this case, as concerns have been raised by various commentators and politicians about the potential for de facto blasphemy laws to emerge from the backdoor. Senior MPs, including former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, have cautioned that prosecuting actions like Coskun’s could inadvertently pave the way for broader restrictions on free speech, particularly surrounding religious critique. The discussion touches on vital societal values, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining public order and upholding individual rights to dissent and protest.
Prosecutor Philip McGhee contested that Coskun was not being charged for burning the Qur'an per se but rather for disorderly conduct. He defended the prosecution, insisting Coskun's actions posed a clear threat to public order. McGhee’s arguments suggest a focus on the manner and context of the demonstration rather than its content, which introduces complexity into the dialogue about expression and authority.
The case has drawn the attention of the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society, both of which advocate for the charges against Coskun to be dropped. They argue that continuing with the prosecution compromises the essence of free expression, emphasising that no individual should be coerced into adhering to the tenets of any religion through the law. Coskun himself expressed bewilderment at facing legal consequences in a country he believed to champion liberty, stating that experiencing such treatment in the UK was shocking.
As the trial progresses, the broader implications for civil liberties remain a focal point of analysis. The discussion surrounding Hamit Coskun’s case highlights the fraught intersection of free speech, religious sensitivity, and public order, raising fundamental questions about what limits, if any, should be placed on expressions that challenge prevailing social norms.
The prosecution's decision and the court’s upcoming ruling could set a precedent that may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, potentially reshaping the landscape of free speech in a multicultural society. While the examination of Coskun's actions is ongoing, the legal and social ramifications of this trial will undoubtedly resonate well beyond the courtroom.
Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services