UK Islamic blasphemy laws defeated in free speech victory

[duluxe]

© The Valley Vanguard - UK Islamic blasphemy laws defeated in free speech victory


Britain’s debate over the limits of free expression has taken another turn after a higher court quashed a conviction in a case that tested the line between offensive speech and criminality. The ruling in the case of Hamit Coskun, who set fire to a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish embassy in London earlier this year, has been read by civil liberties advocates as a significant reinforcement of the right to offend.


The episode began with a public act of provocation that quickly turned violent: Coskun burned the religious text while shouting denunciations of Islam, and was then physically attacked by a passerby. A lower court later convicted him of a racially motivated public-order offense. That conviction has now been overturned by Southwark Crown Court, a decision that raises fresh questions about how police, prosecutors and judges should handle acts intended to shock.


In February, outside the Turkish embassy in west London, a man publicly burned a Koran and shouted inflammatory slogans about Islam. The incident prompted a violent response from a member of the public who stabbed and kicked the protester and spat on him.

• The initial court found Coskun guilty under public-order legislation, treating his actions as racially aggravated conduct.
• 
  
  
• The magistrates who heard the case pointed to the violent reaction as evidence that the protest had provoked disorder on the street.
• 
  
  
• The attacker received a suspended sentence at the time, while Coskun was fined a modest sum.

That sequence — provocative act, violent retaliation, conviction of the provocateur — alarmed free-speech advocates who argued that the state was effectively punishing the content of a political act rather than any genuine threat to public safety.

Why the Crown Court overturned the conviction​

At Southwark Crown Court, the judge examined whether criminal law should be used to shield the public from expressions that many find deeply offensive. In dismissing the conviction, the court made a clear legal point: there is no crime of blasphemy in modern English law, and the criminal code is not meant to immunize people from being upset.





The ruling emphasized that freedom of expression must protect speech that “offends, shocks or disturbs” if it is to be meaningful. The judge warned against turning police forces into arbiters of religious sensitivity and stressed the value of permitting provocative expression in a liberal democracy.

Implications for policing and public-order enforcement​

The decision draws a sharper distinction between policing violence and policing offence. For officers on the street, the judgment sends three practical signals:

• Protect people from physical harm, regardless of the provocations that sparked an incident.

• Avoid treating the fact that speech upsets people as a standalone justification for criminal charges.

1. 
   
2. Reserve public-order prosecutions for genuine threats to safety and public peace, not for the content of political protest.

Critics of the previous outcome argued that the police too often act preemptively to stifle controversial speech in the name of preventing disorder, effectively curtailing civil liberties. The Crown Court’s decision aims to recalibrate that balance.

Reactions from civil liberties groups and affected communities​

Responses to the ruling have been polarized. Civil liberties organizations hailed the judgment as a defense of a core democratic principle. They argue that allowing government to criminalize offensive religious criticism risks a slippery slope toward broader censorship.


At the same time, many in Muslim communities and their representatives voiced frustration and hurt. They say the burning of a sacred text is an attack on their identity and community cohesion, and they fear the decision may embolden similar acts.

• Free-speech advocates stress the importance of protecting even distasteful speech so long as it does not directly incite violence.
• 
  
  
• Community leaders call for stronger tools to counter hatred and for noncriminal responses such as dialogue and mediation.

Legal context: blasphemy, hate speech and public-order law in the UK​

The UK no longer prosecutes blasphemy as a standalone offense; laws that once protected religious doctrine have largely fallen out of use. Instead, criminal liability is typically pursued under public-order or hate-crime statutes when speech is believed to cross into threatening, abusive, or harassing conduct.





Key legal points highlighted by the case include:

• 
  
  
• There is a high bar for converting offensive expression into criminal conduct: the state must demonstrate a concrete risk to public order or that the speech intends to stir up hatred.
• 
  
  
• Context matters: whether a protest is political in nature, the manner of expression, and whether it directly encourages violence are all taken into account.
• 
  
  
• Court rulings like this one can reset prosecutorial priorities and influence how police assess demonstrations and provocative acts moving forward.

What judges and lawmakers may face next​

Legal commentators expect this decision to be cited in future cases where the line between protected expression and punishable conduct is contested. Questions remain about how to reconcile the protection of free expression with obligations to prevent community tensions and hate crimes.





Possible developments to watch:

• 
  
  
• Whether prosecutors revise charging practices in light of the Crown Court’s guidance.
• 
  
  
• How police balance safeguarding the right to offend with duties to maintain public safety.
• 
  
  
• Whether Parliament or civil-society actors propose noncriminal mechanisms to address provocations that inflame social divisions.