The ongoing trial of Hamit Coskun, charged with the incendiary act of burning a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London, underscores a disconcerting trend towards undermining free speech in the UK. Coskun, arrested on February 13, 2023, allegedly protested against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's administration by holding a burning Koran aloft, provoking significant outrage and debate over the relationship between public order and religious sensitivities.

Coskun, a 50-year-old Turkish asylum seeker with Kurdish and Armenian heritage, vehemently denies the charges, framing his actions as a necessary protest against a regime he argues promotes radicalism and sharia law. His defence attorney, Katy Thorne KC, contends that this prosecution represents an alarming resurrection of blasphemy laws, abolished as recently as 2008 in England and Wales and in 2021 for Scotland. By criminalising the act of burning a Koran, the prosecution risks creating a precedent in which religious texts, particularly those of Islam, are treated with undue legal protection.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) initially characterized Coskun's actions as causing harassment, alarm, or distress to Islam, but revised this framing amid a fierce backlash from advocates of free speech and concerned politicians who warned of impending restrictions on expression. Conservative MP Robert Jenrick hailed this revision as a triumph for free speech, highlighting the urgent need to defend democratic values from encroachments.

Prosecutor Philip McGhee's position argues that Coskun’s actions breached free speech protections, posing a "clear threat to public order," citing the strategic timing and location of the protest. This interpretation, however, raises alarm among critics who see it as a misrepresentation of free expression limits, insisting that peaceful protest against any ideology or government should remain uncontested.

Beyond legal ramifications, the implications of this case resonate within societal fears of national cohesion in a multicultural setting. Coskun’s protest and the subsequent violence he faced—reportedly being attacked with a knife—highlight the volatile intersection of strong political opinions and religious convictions, posing a significant risk to public safety.

Rallies in support of Coskun from advocates of secularism and free expression emphasize the dangers a successful prosecution poses to the concept of self-expression itself, which could anchor a new de facto blasphemy law within the judicial system. The National Secular Society has expressed concerns that this case could catalyse serious consequences for those who dare to dissent against religious ideas.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, warns that a conviction would threaten the bedrock of free expression, fostering an environment conducive to suppressing legitimate criticism of religious symbols. Additionally, a spokesperson from Humanists UK cautioned that measures akin to blasphemy laws would severely endanger apostates—individuals abandoning their religion who could face persecution as a result.

As Hamit Coskun's trial progresses, it serves as a pivotal moment for the discourse surrounding freedom of speech and the potential dangers of legislative regression regarding blasphemy laws in the UK. The verdict of this case could profoundly impact the nature of public dialogue surrounding religious beliefs for years to come. The current trajectory suggests a worrying trend under the new government, raising concerns about its commitment to upholding the foundational principles that permit robust debate and dissent.

Source: Noah Wire Services