- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
Please subscribe and get a FREE copy of Atheist Limericks & Cartoons!
Click this link to help me keep The Angry Atheist active with a donation.
HAMIT Coskun, inset, who set fire to a Koran outside the the Turkish consulate in London has won an appeal against his conviction after a judge backed his “right to offend”.
Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian and was born in Turkey, was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence in June after shouting “fuck Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism” while burning the “holy” book in February.
Westminster magistrates court had found that Coskun’s actions were motivated at least in part by hostility towards Muslims due to prejudicial comments he made in his police interview. Coskun had argued his public criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers.
In a legal challenge backed by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society, Coskun had the conviction overturned at Southwark crown court yesterday ( Friday).
Mr Justice Bennathan said that while burning a Koran might be something “many Muslims find desperately upsetting and offensive”, the right to freedom of expression:
Must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb.
After the ruling, Coskun said he had come to England “to be able to speak freely about the dangers of radical Islam” and was now “reassured that, despite many troubling developments, I will now be free to educate the British public about my beliefs”.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who attended the hearing, said he did not agree with burning the Koran. But he added: “I don’t believe it’s a crime.”
He and other campaigners had argued the prosecution and conviction was akin to blasphemy being reintroduced “inadvertently, by our court service”. Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2021.
Toby Young, the director of the Free Speech Union, said the ruling sent a message that:
Anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
The National Secular Society said the judgment was “an important victory for freedom of expression”, describing Coskun’s protest as a “lawful act of political dissent”.
National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans yesterday said:
We welcome today’s judgment as an important victory for freedom of expression. Hamit Coskun’s protest was a lawful act of political dissent. There is no need to condone the nature of his demonstration — what is important is that it was not criminal.
He added
Today’s decision reaffirms the vital principle that free speech protects the right to offend, shock, or disturb — even when it challenges deeply held religious beliefs. England and Wales rightly abolished its blasphemy laws more than a decade ago. This ruling helps ensure they are not reintroduced by stealth under the guise of public order, and that our commitment to free speech remains strong. Crucially, the judgment also draws a clear line between attacks on individuals and criticism of ideas. This distinction is essential to a healthy democracy, and this case should serve as a turning point for it to be better understood and reflected in public policy.
A Humanists UK spokesperson said:
We are delighted and relieved to see Hamit’s conviction overturned. While we do not agree with the appellant’s prejudicial views about Muslims, he did not express these at the time of the act for which he was previously charged and the judge has now found he shouldn’t have been convicted.
The spokesperson added:
We are concerned that this case has highlighted gaps in the law that could allow vital free speech protections to fall by the wayside. We will continue to campaign to uphold the fullest freedom of expression laws limited only to prevent harm to others.
Coskun’s action led to a knife attack against him by a Muslim.

Moussa Kadri was given a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours of unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation.
As someone who produced dozens of nativity plays as a teacher and a Sunday School leader, that title ‘A Gay…
The defence of a Christian view never seems to be settled by debate: exchange of facts, reference to historical events.…
But …… Rwanda is a safe place: Parliament says so.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/contentsSafety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 S 2 Safety…
Religion can survive only on the most unquestionable assumptions. The statements made on Sundays on the BBC as if they…
Yes, if I’ve got anything remotely like a phobia, as an ex-fundy, its bibles, churches, tracts etc. I like to…
Please help me keep The Angry Atheist going with a donation.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly


Leave a comment