A man has been convicted for a religiously aggravated public order offence after burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London, an act that has sparked heated debate over the boundaries of free expression in the UK.
During the incident, which took place in February in Knightsbridge, the man held up a burning copy of the Islamic holy book while reportedly shouting inflammatory phrases such as “f*** Islam” and “Islam is religion of terrorism.” The court heard that he intended to protest against the Turkish government, which he described as an “Islamist regime” under the long-serving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He claimed his demonstration was aimed at highlighting what he sees as the threat of political Islam and defending secular values.
The court found that his actions crossed the line between protest and hate speech. Delivering the verdict at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the judge stated that the man’s conduct was “highly provocative” and that his words and actions were at least partly motivated by hatred toward followers of Islam. He was fined £240 and ordered to pay a statutory surcharge of £96.
The case has reignited a wider public discussion around freedom of expression, hate speech, and the legacy of blasphemy laws in the UK. Critics of the conviction argue that prosecuting someone for burning a religious text, even in a confrontational manner, threatens the principle of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent. Supporters of the verdict counter that the act went beyond protest and constituted an intentional provocation likely to incite hostility and distress.
The convicted man, a 50-year-old atheist of Kurdish and Armenian heritage who was born in Turkey and now resides in the Midlands, claimed that his actions were part of a peaceful protest. He argued that burning the Koran was an expression of political dissent and personal belief, rather than an attempt to harass or intimidate.
Video footage played in court appeared to show him being confronted by another man who was allegedly holding a knife. In the recording, the accused can be seen backing away and attempting to defend himself using the burning Koran. The altercation underscored the volatile nature of the event and added complexity to the legal proceedings.
The man denied using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, motivated by hostility towards a religious group. He also denied an alternative charge of disorderly conduct under the Public Order Act. Ultimately, only the charge involving religious aggravation was upheld.
The outcome has drawn strong criticism from civil liberties advocates, who argue that the ruling effectively revives blasphemy laws that were abolished in England and Wales in 2008. They contend that freedom of expression must include the right to offend, and that laws should not protect religious beliefs from criticism or satire.
Supporters of the ruling maintain that freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to protect social harmony and prevent actions that incite hatred or violence. They argue that targeting a specific religious group in such an inflammatory way crosses a line that society has a right to enforce.
An appeal is expected to be launched against the verdict, with campaigners insisting that the decision undermines democratic rights and empowers those who use threats or violence to silence opposing views. The case is likely to remain a flashpoint in ongoing discussions about the limits of free speech in a pluralistic society.
