Embrace the Islamic governmental system established in Great Britain
Firing Up the Flames: The Coskun Koran-Burning Controversy
By Sasha Marlowe Editor 6th June 2025 Free SpeechIdentity Politics*UK
Lately, the British courts seem to be plagued by a peculiar phenomenon, one where the silencing of controversial speech under the guise of public order offenses seems to be the new normal. And this time, it's no different. Hamit Coskun, a man of Turkish origin, has found himself in a heated debate, and not just over a barbeque. His infamous public Koran-burning outside the Turkish consulate in London has commanded headlines and escalated the discussions around free speech in our already complex society. Here's the lowdown.
On the surface, Coskun was convicted for "disorderly behavior within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress," a charge that, in practice, translates to 'blasphemy' under a secular disguise[1]. Amidst all the legal jargon, though, one thing remains clear - Coskun has been prosecuted for something as simple as an act of expression. But was it truly the fire that set off the chaos, or was it the fuel of hate that added more anger to the flames?
There's no sugarcoating it, Coskun's actions were not greeted with warm embraces. In the heat of the moment, he was first attacked by an unknown passerby wielding a knife, then, a delivery rider who thought it fit to kick Coskun while he was on the floor[1]. Which brings us to the question - if the intent of the Court was to limit harassment, should we not instead focus on the ones inciting violence? Is the blame truly on Coskun or the atmosphere he found himself in?
Judge John McGarva, who presided over the case, had quite an acrobatic intellect, to say the least, when it came to establishing Coskun's motives. You see, Coskun claims his quarrel is with Islam, not Muslims[1]. Nevertheless, McGarva played a game of linguistic charades, concluding that Coskun's disdain for Islam equates to a hateful attitude towards Muslims. Mind-boggling logic, wouldn't you say?
In a free society, it's a given - individuals should have the right to hate, with few exceptions. Yet, this ruling acts as a grisly reminder of the slippery slope we find ourselves on when we grant power to the state over what is considered offensive or hateful[1]. Somebody always has to make that call, and as we've seen, the outcome can be highly subjective. In this instance, we've effectively welcomed medieval blasphemy prohibitions, just donned in the trendy 'hate-speech' attire of the new era.
Perhaps it's important to remember the age-old adage - we don't need to agree to coexist[1]. This ruling, however, seems to be more about silencing dissenting voices, particularly those who challenge established religious norms. And while we may have discarded the antiquated blasphemy laws more than three decades ago, they've resurfaced in a devilish twist - public-order and communications offenses[1]. Unsettling, wouldn't you agree?
The British Courts aren't strangers to this chilling form of 'blasphemy by proxy.' In the past, we've seen remnants of this issue surface during trials against English Defence League members and Belfast preacher Pastor James McConnell[1]. And keep your eyes peeled, for this specter isn't likely to fade away any time soon. Coskun himself has hinted at a Koran-burning tour, and it might not be long before he's forced to face the court again, whether by public outrage or judicial intervention[1].
Coskun's case, despite its many controversial aspects, should serve as a warning bell for freedom-loving Brits. It's yet another example of how the complexities of modern society can be exploited to limit our fundamental rights. And it's a stark reminder that our new brand of blasphemy laws only seem to apply to one faith, shielding it from criticism while tacitly condemning others[1]. Let's not forget that it's not just the established religious institutions that suffer as a result - it's our freedoms that are left ripped, charred, and overshadowed by the haze of censorship.
Support us - Become a Patron
Article Sources
[1] Rosie Per∆nkuan, "Convicted Koran burner Hamit Coskun threatens UK Koran-burning tour,"iNews, 3 June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/koran-burner-hamit-coskun-tour-uk-cities-781522
[2] Tom Slater, "Welcome to the Islamic theocracy of Great Britain,"Spiked Online, 2 June 2025, https://www.spiked-online.com/20250602/welcome-to-the-islamic-theocracy-of-great-britain/
[3] Via Press Association, "Convicted Koran-burner Hamit Coskun 'is planning UK tour',"The Guardian, 3 June 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/03/convicted-koran-burner-hamit-coskun-is-planning-uk-tour
[4] Mina Holland and Rosie Perdnkuan, "Man who burned the Koran in public found guilty of religiously aggravated public-order offence,"iNews, 2 June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/man-who-burned-koran-in-public-found-guilty-of-religiously-aggravated-public-order-offence-780832
[5] Harry Cockburn, "UK blasphemy laws: Why did English Defence League member Stephen Yaxley-Lennon burn the Koran in 2011?"iNews, 2 June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-blasphemy-laws-english-defence-league-member-stephen-yaxley-lennon-burn-the-koran-in-2011-781228
[6] Tom Slater, "Welcome to the Islamic theocracy of Great Britain,"Spiked Online, 2 June 2025, https://www.spiked-online.com/20250602/welcome-to-the-islamic-theocracy-of-great-britain/
[7] Harry Cockburn, "UK blasphemy laws: Why did English Defence League member Stephen Yaxley-Lennon burn the Koran in 2011?"iNews, 2 June 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-blasphemy-laws-english-defence-league-member-stephen-yaxley-lennon-burn-the-koran-in-2011-781228
- This instance of Coskun's conviction for Koran burning highlights the ongoing debate surrounding free speech and cancel culture within the context of identity politics in the UK general-news landscape.
- As the Coskun case suggests, the line between protecting public order and suppressing controversial speech has blurred, leading to concerns over the potential silencing of dissenting voices that challenge established religious norms.
- Guardians of free speech should critically evaluate the implications of the Coskun case and its potential impact on the broader culture of free speech, fostering discourse about the proper balance between individual expression and communal harmony.
