Another important free speech win.

[Imnobody4]

Hamit Coskun has won his appeal against his conviction for burning a Koran.
This is another welcome judgement underlining the right to free speech even if it grievously upsets. The fact the CPS prosecuted this case is a disgrace.

From the Crown Court's judgement in the Hamit Coskun case:

"There is no offence of blasphemy in our law. Burning a Koran may be an act that many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive. The criminal law, however, is not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset. The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.

"We live in a liberal democracy. One of the precious rights that affords us is to express our own views and read, hear and consider ideas without the state intervening to stop us doing so. The price we pay for that is having to allow others to exercise the same rights, even if that upsets, offends or shocks us."

Mr Justice Bennathan
Ms T Guest JP
Mr D Graves JP
10 October 2025

Totally the right result.

That's really good news.

100%.

In my humble opinion respect is a good thing, and one should not burn the Koran unless one has a good reason (ie a good point to make). Making a point about the Islamification of a Secular Turkey is one such reason, and to make the point that freedom of expression matters is another.

Hopefully Koran burners of the future will do their best to save it for special occasions where it is justified.

Yes I agree, hope idiots aren't going to try and prove a point.

I wondered if someone would post about this.

Not just the decision, but that it goes against what the Government and their direction to the police is, which is that it isn't acceptable to say something that might cause offense.

And that they are extending this to reasons some demos shouldn't be allowed.

NB not wanting to start a discussion on current political issues, but that was my first response on reading about the court judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v7wlj3pr2o

Hopefully it will put a brake on the looming Islamophobia definition which could stifle all kinds of feminist debate around niqabs, marriage laws and discrimination.

And of course the ongoing dispute over whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic, or used as a weapon by Labour when they were having one of their ongoing internal disputes.

The most remarkable thing about this was the fact that someone who observed the Koran burning was so angered that he went home and got a knife which he used to attack Hamit Coskun and not only did the attacker not go to jail for this act, but the fact that Coskun had been attacked was taken by the original prosecuting court as evidence that Coskun must have done something suffiicently bad that it was criminal.

That’s awful, I didn’t know that!

I doubted myself as I typed that but I've had a look and:

The judge even cited the knife attack as evidence of his wrongdoing – proof, supposedly, that Coskun’s provocation had led to disorder.

Seriously?

Was the knife man not arrested. Or was it the the CPS didn't think it worth prosecuting or ............. ??

Less and less that happens by "the authorities" makes sense.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o

The remarkably light sentence was understood by many to indicate that if a Muslim man uses violence to "protect" his religion, this might be viewed indulgently by the court.

He pled guilt and was given a 20w suspended sentence 🙄

It was a vicious attack as well. He was kicking and spitting on Hamit as he lay on the ground. It's truly mind boggling.

I started a thread on it at the time, but it didn’t get any traffic. I posted this, which is sentencing guidelines.

He should have got a 6 months custodial as a minimum.

Also, isn't going somewhere to get a knife and then returning with it to use it in an attack an extremely aggravating factor?

Good! I don't think he even needed a particularly good reason. It was his book, I assume, he can do what he wants with it. Maybe not set light to his curtains but he shouldn't use the Guinness Book of Records or Hergés Adventures of Tintin to do that either.

He was assisted in his appeal by Free Speech Union, I'm more and more glad that I joined this union. HC's actions might seem extreme to some but his treatment by the Islamist's in Turkey was extreme, he was protesting in an free and fair country about the action's of a totalitarian regime. The actions taken against him in the UK seriously call into question our free and fair country claims, we acted more like Turkey, than a free and fair country.

I'm glad he's won on the appeal, he should never have been prosecuted and his attacker should have felt the full force of the law, in this alleged free and fair country.

It's not a union

I wonder what would happen, without encouraging anyone to do it, to see what would happen if a book that has particular importance to any other religion was burnt in public as a protest. Would the person who did this also be thought to be doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech?

Let's say it's a bible and a passerby, who is a committed Christian, is outraged, heads somewhere to get a knife, and then uses it to attack the bible burner.

Would the bible burner be told by a judge that the fact he'd caused the attack on himself was evidence that he'd carried out a criminal act by burning the bible?

Would the Christian attacker get a suspended sentence and avoid going to jail?

It’s a lot more useful than a union in these issues.

For an attack with a bladed weapon? 20 weeks, suspended?

I think it’s significantly more likely that if you burned a religious book which wasn’t the Koran it would be considered a free speech issue with no case to answer.

Yep 🙃

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o.amp