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

I think you know that isn't true.

I cant imagine someone burning the Torah in public would be accepted as a free speech issue.

I suspect that part of the reasoning to say it was free speech is that it was seen as someone commenting on his own religion.

But had it been burned by someone of a different religion it would not have been seen as a free speech issue.

What if atheism is my committed belief? - all kinds of religious worship enrage me. Do I get the 20w suspended sentence option too?

IwantToRetire · Today 19:08

No, as already pointed out, Mr. Stabby McStabbyface only got a short, suspended sentence, in defiance of the guidelines, which stipulate a custodial sentence.

I don’t “know it isn’t true”, thanks. I think your view is bizarre.

How likely would it be that you could get gangs of atheists in a number of UK cities to cause significant civil unrest?

About zero - all the atheists that I have met are pretty laid back. Why should others be treated differently just because the are religiously highly strung?

I can't see that. All books belong to everyone. They are about ideas and beliefs we all have a right to interrogate and question [actually I mean a duty]. His book he does what he likes with it. He's also free to protest.

Years ago 1990s in a library an elderly Muslim man explained to me that the Koran was a sacred book and must be kept on the highest shelf. I had to explain to him that the library was a secular space and all books were equal. I felt sorry for him as it was obviously culture shock.

After evacuating a library due to bomb threats and many other instances I no longer feel sympathy.

I could refer to two-tier policing but because that would mark me out as extreme right wing according to the Home Office I won't do that.

They might think that but I couldn't possibly comment

They're just taking the piss now, really.

Does Labour actively want Reform to win the next election?

Great news for him, but shocking that the attacker with the knife got such a low sentence. Was the reasoning behind the light sentence acceptable? Is it (or can it?) be challenged? I can’t believe that a knife crime, especially in a big city where it’s such an important issue, has got such a low sentence.

I agree... but on the other hand we do all need to rub along. IMHO "rubbing along" means non-muslims don't go around burning the koran willy-nilly, but muslims bite their lips and tolerate it when it does happen (and especially when the person doing the burning has a valid political point to make which relates directly to the koran)

The CPS have lost their minds. They're not fit for purpose. Recently in parliament Labour MP Tahir Ali asked: ‘Will the Prime Minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?’

Keir Starmer uttered a bland, robotic reply that, ‘Desecration is awful, and we are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division, including Islamophobia.’
They are determined to bring in blasphemy law.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has appealed to the High Court, asking it to rule on whether the decision was reached correctly. If successful, the court could then overturn Coskun’s acquittal or order a fresh hearing.
In documents obtained by The Times, the CPS said that Coskun, whose legal fees are being funded by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society, had carried out an “act of desecration” in burning the Quran, which it described as an “obviously provocative act”.

www.thetimes.com/article/79cc8d33-d6c9-4651-8975-1d276bf69cbb?shareToken=531b50350a8787e8bf5430c4321008f4

Sad news.
The sooner Starmer is in the dustbin of history the better.

Xpost from FSU, they're supporting Hamit again.

This is hugely significant because the outcome will set legal precedent and will almost certainly be cited in all future cases involving not just Quran burning, but public challenges to Islam in general.

If the Crown wins, it will mean we effectively have a Muslim blasphemy law in the UK. But if Hamit wins, it will be a victory for all of us who believe in freedom of expression and the fundamental liberty to criticise ANY religion.

The FSU continues to stand with Hamit. We’ve arranged for the same top legal team who won the case in the Crown Court – Tim Owen KC and Rosalind Comyn, instructed by 3D Solicitors – to represent him.

This constant undermining of the law by the government and it's state institutions is deeply anti-democratic, first the Minister for Women and Equalities is challenging the SC's clarification of a 15 year old law, now the CPS is challenging a ruling by the High Court, if the government acts as if it doesn't have any faith in the country's legal system, why should the people?

This won't end well, if the government keeps kowtowing to every 'community' there won't be a country left for them to govern, we'll be officially a failed state and it will be a free for all.

Why is this in the women's rights board?

Yes, light sentences can and should be challenged, but who will do it?

The offence was squarely within the offence of threatening with a bladed weapon, therefore had a mandatory minimum six month's incarceration sentence, according to sentencing guidelines.

Or,at least, for the mainstream offenders: 'Special groups', such as aggressive men wanting access to women-only spaces, or just wanting to display hatred of women, do seem to have a 'special' law enforcement system. Two-tier justice appears routine.

Because freedom of speech is essential for women to protect their rights. The growth of patriarchical religions and the attempt to protect them in law is a direct threat to women's rights.

Nobody's mentioned women's right in this thread though

No because it's about a win against a blasphemy law which Labour are trying to introduce under the banner of Islamophobia.
A law which would be used to protect Sharia councils, grooming gangs and any other criticism of Islam here and abroad. Which could be used to stifle criticism by those who have left the faith and are therefore apostates, many of whom are women. It could stifle writers like Salman Rushdie.

"Many of whom are women". Well you got there in the end.

No - Sharia councils discriminate against women, grooming gangs target girls, misogynist Imams preach the subordination of women.
Other threads have covered all of these. I repeat this is an important case in protecting the right to criticise and protest against religions.
Women certainly have skin in this game.