Checklist: Explain the court case at the center of the controversy; outline how the ruling could function like a blasphemy ban; cite reactions and quoted warnings; note possible US implications; include the original embeds.
Britain is facing a legal showdown that could change how criticism of religion, especially Islam, is treated in public life. A High Court appeal has turned a disturbing case into a wider test of whether the right to offend will survive in British law. The stakes are clear: a ruling that upholds a conviction for a provocative Quran burning could effectively create a zone where certain religious sensibilities are immune from criticism. That would be a dramatic shift from long-established free speech norms in the English-speaking world.
The background involves Hamit Coskun, a Turkish asylum seeker who burned a copy of the Quran outside his country’s London embassy while shouting, “Islam is a religion of terrorism.” He was attacked by a man who slashed him with a knife and threatened his life, yet the legal outcome has become tangled. Coskun was initially convicted under the Public Order Act, a decision later overturned on appeal when Justice Joel Bennathan affirmed that there is no offence of blasphemy in UK law and upheld the “right to offend.” The Crown Prosecution Service is now asking the High Court to reverse that acquittal.
The consequences are being laid out bluntly by commentators and civil liberties advocates who fear a back-door blasphemy rule. Free Speech Union founder Toby Young warned that “if the court overturns his acquittal and upholds the conviction, that will effectively create a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door.” That is a stark claim but not an exaggeration if courts begin treating provocation caused by religious offence as a shield against criticism. In practice, it could reward violent reactions and punish the original speaker.
Some of the reporting on this case has emphasized how different standards could apply to criticism of different faiths. The point being made is simple: if the legal system treats an assault by a religious adherent as a mitigating factor or as proof that speech crossed into criminal territory, the effect will be to chill dissent aimed at that religion. No comparable pattern exists for other faiths where adherents rarely respond with violence to insults, so the law would produce unequal protections tied to the conduct of third parties rather than the content of speech.
https://x.com/Stephenmevans1/status/2023306710396407927
Last October, we reported that Britain had “narrowly avoided blasphemy laws in disguise.” Now, they are very much back on the cards, and could be introduced as soon as this Tuesday.
This is due to the case of Hamit Coskun, a Turkish asylum seeker who burned a copy of the Quran outside his country’s London embassy while shouting, “Islam is a religion of terrorism.” A Muslim man slashed Coskun with a knife and shouted, “I’m going to kill you,” but was spared jail.
Coskun was initially convicted last June of a breach of the Public Order Act, despite supporters that “he hurt no one” and “he threatened no one.” The conviction was later overturned on appeal, with Justice Joel Bennathan affirming that there is no offence of blasphemy in UK law, and upholding the “right to offend.”
The CPS appeal is set for February 17th, and the legal arguments will test whether courts permit convictions based on the emotional impact alleged by those who claim offense. Critics say such an outcome would signal to violent actors that they can enforce religious codes by threat or attack, then rely on prosecutors to convert the victim into the defendant. That would invert justice and hand enforcement power over to those willing to use violence.
The Crown Prosecution Service is attempting to reverse the decision, and will have its case heard at the High Court on February 17th.
Free Speech Union founder Toby Young has warned that “if the court overturns his acquittal and upholds the conviction, that will effectively create a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door.”
It will send a message to Muslim fanatics up and down the country that if they want to enforce Islamic blasphemy codes, all they have to do is violently attack the blasphemer, and the blasphemer will then be charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence.
It’s a recipe for chaos. It will be the death knell for free speech in Britain. It will cause a huge rise in community tensions.
There is also a diplomatic angle. Reports say the United States government has taken an interest in the case, with officials noting it among other matters under review. One report states that Donald Trump’s administration has discussed helping Coskun leave Britain if he loses his appeal, describing the matter as “one of several cases the administration has made note of.” That international attention reflects wider concern about civil liberties and how democracies respond to religiously motivated violence.
The broader lesson merits attention here at home. When a major ally like Britain appears to open a legal route toward protecting religious feelings from criticism, the same legal reasoning can migrate. History shows ideas about curbing speech often travel across borders, and left-leaning activists in the United States have already pursued similar aims under different labels. Watching how courts and prosecutors handle this case will be important for anyone who values robust debate and the liberty to criticize ideas, institutions, and beliefs without fear of criminal sanction.
What happens next in the High Court could shape public discourse across Europe and beyond. If the decision leans toward criminalizing provocative criticism because it provokes violence by others, that will be a watershed moment for free expression in Britain. Regardless of your views on the underlying act, the principle at stake is whether anger or violent response can create new criminal rules that limit speech.
People who support free speech should be alert to this test case and its implications. A legal path that effectively protects religious doctrines from criticism by using public order law would mark a new and troubling form of censorship, one enforced by fear and the threat of legal penalties rather than by argument or persuasion.
Add comment