Starmer Drawn into Controversial Qur’an-Burning Court Case
Asylum Seeker’s Trial for Setting Islamic Holy Book Alight Draws Parallels to Case Previously Defended by Sir Keir in 2001
Hamit Coskun may very well represent Britain’s most imperilled individual at present. The 50-year-old asylum seeker certainly appears to possess what can only be described as a death wish. In February of this year, he embarked upon a coach journey to London, approached the Turkish consulate, withdrew a copy of the Qur’an from his rucksack, and proceeded to set fire to the Islamic holy book using a cigarette lighter.
The incident, captured on video and subsequently circulated widely across social media platforms, resulted in Mr Coskun being subjected to a violent assault for what he maintains was a meaningful political demonstration, though many observers would characterise it as a deliberately provocative anti-Islamic stunt designed to cause maximum offence.
In the immediate aftermath of the Qur’an burning incident, Mr Coskun reports that two Iraqi men forcibly entered his residence in Derby, threatening him with a knife and an ashtray whilst making clear their intentions regarding his continued wellbeing. Derbyshire Police, recognising the gravity of the threats against him, removed Mr Coskun from his home and relocated him to a secure safe house elsewhere in the Midlands—a nondescript terraced property in an undisclosed location which, for obvious security reasons, cannot be described in any further detail.
On Wednesday, Mr Coskun is scheduled to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where he faces charges of disorderly behaviour likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress” under the Public Order Act 1986. According to the prosecution’s case, whilst setting the Qur’an alight outside the Turkish diplomatic mission, Mr Coskun not only swore profusely but also shouted “Islam is religion of terrorism” in his heavily accented and grammatically imperfect English. The charges specifically allege that his actions were motivated “by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam,” potentially elevating the matter to the level of a religiously aggravated offence.
Despite the serious nature of the charges and the very real threats to his personal safety, Mr Coskun remains entirely unrepentant about his actions. He intends to enter a plea of not guilty and, regardless of the outcome of his legal proceedings, has announced his intention to embark upon what he describes as a “tour of the United Kingdom,” burning copies of the Qur’an in other major cities including Liverpool, Birmingham, and Glasgow.
The case has attracted significant attention from civil liberties organisations and free speech advocates. Mr Coskun has become something of a cause célèbre amongst those who view his prosecution as an attack on fundamental freedoms of expression and religious criticism. The Free Speech Union, a prominent civil liberties organisation, has taken up his case with considerable enthusiasm, providing funding for a professional security team to protect him from further threats, as well as covering half of his substantial legal fees. The National Secular Society, another organisation dedicated to the separation of religion and state, has agreed to fund the remaining portion of his legal costs.
The international dimension of the case has also begun to emerge. An American woman, who learned of Mr Coskun’s arrest through online coverage of the incident, has made plans to travel to the United Kingdom specifically to join him in future Qur’an-burning demonstrations, suggesting that the case may inspire copycat protests both within Britain and internationally.
Mr Coskun’s legal team, which includes experienced human rights barristers, intends to mount a robust defence based upon Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest. They will argue that their client possesses an absolute human right to burn a copy of the Qur’an if he so chooses, as a form of legitimate political and religious criticism.
In a remarkable twist that has added considerable political intrigue to the proceedings, Mr Coskun’s lawyers have identified an unlikely ally in their fight: none other than Sir Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Nearly a quarter of a century ago, long before his entry into politics and his eventual rise to Number 10 Downing Street, Sir Keir worked as a distinguished human rights barrister at the prestigious Doughty Street Chambers in London. In that capacity, in the year 2001, he successfully represented a peace activist who had been prosecuted for defacing the American flag during a protest outside a United States Air Force base in Norfolk.
During those High Court proceedings, Sir Keir made an impassioned argument that would now appear to support Mr Coskun’s case. He told the court: “Flag denigration is a form of protest activity renowned the world over,” emphasising that such symbolic acts of defiance represent legitimate forms of political expression that should be protected under human rights law.
Sir Keir further argued that the court should actively protect the right of his client—a 59-year-old peace campaigner named Lindis Percy—to stage what he characterised as a “peaceful protest in a free and democratic society.” The High Court was persuaded by Sir Keir’s arguments and subsequently quashed his client’s conviction for disorderly behaviour “likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress”—precisely the same provision of the Public Order Act 1986 under which Mr Coskun now finds himself charged.
In a charming anecdote that illustrates the personal commitment Sir Keir brought to the case, Ms Percy would later reveal that the future Prime Minister had confided to her that he had taken to wearing underpants emblazoned with the Stars and Stripes flag, explaining that this allowed him to demonstrate his unwavering support for her cause whenever he sat down whilst wearing them—a delightfully eccentric gesture that speaks to his dedication to the principles of free expression.
Sitting in his current accommodation—the sparse and deliberately unremarkable safe house that has become his temporary home—Mr Coskun cuts a figure that is, in many respects, an unlikely candidate for heroic status. Standing at merely 5 feet 5 inches tall, he possesses a diminutive physical presence that belies what can only be described as extraordinary courage, though some might characterise it as courage that borders upon madness or reckless endangerment of his own life.
Communication with Mr Coskun proves challenging, as he speaks virtually no English, necessitating the use of an interpreter who joins our conversation via Zoom video call. Such is the complexity of his personal circumstances that it takes him a full ten minutes to answer the seemingly simple question “How old are you?” This delay stems from complications surrounding his birth documentation and official records. He states that he is officially recorded as being 50 years of age, though his physical appearance suggests he may be somewhat older than his documented age would indicate.
Mr Coskun’s journey to the United Kingdom began two and a half years ago when he fled Turkey to escape what he describes as systematic persecution. He is currently seeking asylum in Britain, and his application remains under active review by the Home Office. His ethnic background is mixed—he is half Armenian and half Kurdish—and describes himself as a committed atheist who spent nearly a decade imprisoned in Turkey for his membership of a Kurdish political organisation that Turkish authorities alleged, though Mr Coskun vehemently denies, served as a terrorist front organisation.
During his time as a political activist in Turkey, Mr Coskun endures what he describes as systematic abuse and torture whilst in detention. On one particularly harrowing occasion, he recounts, a gun was placed against his neck by his captors in what appears to have been either an interrogation technique or a death threat. These experiences of persecution and torture provide crucial context for understanding his current campaign against Islamic fundamentalism and his willingness to risk his life in pursuit of what he sees as essential political protest.
Mr Coskun’s motivation for the Qur’an burning stems from his growing alarm at what he perceives as the progressive Islamification of Turkey. Turkey, constitutionally established as a modern, secular state following the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the early 20th century, has in recent years witnessed what Mr Coskun describes as the increasing influence of Islamist ideology, deliberately encouraged and exploited by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a means of consolidating his authoritarian grip on political power.
This concern about Turkey’s direction provides the essential context for understanding Mr Coskun’s decision to undertake his fateful journey to London on 13th February. In the week preceding the incident, he had posted extensively on various social media platforms, expressing his deep concern that the Qur’an was being used as a tool to propel Turkey towards the implementation of sharia law. “I have been studying the Qur’an for 25 years now,” he explains through his interpreter, expressing his firm conviction that the Islamic holy book actively encourages and promotes terrorism.
“So on February 13th I travelled to London by coach,” Mr Coskun explains. “At 2 o’clock in the afternoon, directly in front of the Turkish consulate, I made my protest. I chose that location specifically because Turkey has been transformed into a base for Islamic extremism, and that is precisely why I felt compelled to burn the Qur’an.”
His preparation for the protest was thorough and deliberate. He carefully packed a copy of the Qur’an in his bag, along with two cigarette lighters—ensuring he had a spare in case the first one failed—and then proceeded to set the holy book alight directly outside the Turkish diplomatic mission in central London.
The reaction was immediate and explosive. All hell broke loose.
‘I’m Going to F***ing Kill You Now’
The video footage posted on social media platforms provides a disturbing record of the violent confrontation that ensued. The recording shows Mr Coskun shouting whilst holding the holy book, now engulfed in flames. A man emerges from a neighbouring building and demands to know why he is conducting such a protest. “Terrorist,” Mr Coskun replies, apparently referring to the religion itself rather than the individual questioner. The man’s response is immediate and threatening: “You’re a fing idiot,” he shouts, before adding the chilling threat: “I’m going to fing kill you now.”
The situation escalates rapidly from verbal confrontation to physical violence. The man disappears back inside the building briefly, then re-emerges and launches a sustained physical assault on Mr Coskun, who is punched repeatedly and pushed violently to the ground before being kicked whilst he lies defenceless on the pavement—all whilst he continues to clutch the burning Qur’an in his hands. In an additional disturbing element captured on the video, a delivery cyclist appears to deliberately run over Mr Coskun’s hand as he lies prone on the ground, adding further injury to an already serious assault. The man who conducted the primary assault would subsequently appear in court and plead guilty to charges of assault.
“I don’t speak English, but I could clearly understand that the man was making serious threats against me,” Mr Coskun recalls of the incident. “After about a minute, he returned and began his attack. I was genuinely scared for my life. But being frightened doesn’t mean that I am a coward or that I regret my actions.”
He continues: “Then the delivery rider deliberately stamped on my hand with considerable force and threw his bicycle on top of me before cycling away as quickly as possible.”
Following the violent confrontation, Mr Coskun was first transported to a local hospital for medical treatment of his injuries. After receiving necessary medical attention, he was formally arrested by Metropolitan Police officers and held in police custody for 24 hours before being brought before a magistrate, charged with the offences, and released on conditional bail that allowed him to return to his home in Derby.
However, his ordeal was far from over. Several days later, Mr Coskun awoke during the night to discover two men—whom he identifies as being of Iraqi origin—standing in his kitchen. The intruders had somehow gained entry to his Derby flat and were clearly there with malicious intent. “One was carrying a large knife and the other was holding an ashtray, apparently as a weapon,” he recounts. “They pushed me forcefully against the wall and showed me the video of the Qur’an burning incident on their mobile phone. They made their message very clear: ‘If you continue with these activities, you will die.'” The intruders called him an unbeliever and an infidel before departing, leaving Mr Coskun in no doubt about the seriousness of their threat.
Demonstrating considerable wisdom given the circumstances, Mr Coskun immediately decided to leave Derby. He describes the incident in his flat as being “far more terrifying” than the violent assault he had endured in London, perhaps because it occurred in what should have been the safety and security of his own home. He was subsequently moved to the safe house that now serves as his home—a location that is deliberately unremarkable and secure, though its sparse furnishings and covered windows create an atmosphere that is bare, bleak, and profoundly miserable.
Despite the very real dangers he faces and the isolation of his current circumstances, Mr Coskun remains absolutely steadfast in what he describes as his “mini-crusade” against Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of whether he wins or loses Wednesday’s trial, he states with unwavering determination: “I will absolutely carry on burning copies of the Qur’an. I am a political activist, and this is my chosen form of protest. I was genuinely surprised that I was charged with criminal offences because I truly believed that this country was a liberal democracy where freedom of expression existed as a fundamental right. I was really shocked by the hostile attitude I encountered.”
“I will absolutely plead not guilty to these charges,” he continues. “I will never accept that my actions constitute a crime under British law.”
Mr Coskun insists that his motivation is not malicious: “I don’t want to upset anyone unnecessarily,” although it is difficult to see how he reconciles this claim with his decision to burn the Qur’an in such a public and deliberately provocative manner. Burning any religious text, particularly one as sacred as the Qur’an is to Muslims, must inevitably cause deep offence and distress to believers. However, he responds to this apparent contradiction by stating: “There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning, criticising, or challenging any religion. That is a fundamental right in a free society.”
In a development that may concern some observers, Mr Coskun expresses strong support for Tommy Robinson, the far-right, anti-Islam activist who was recently released from prison following his conviction for contempt of court. “I love him and what he represents,” Mr Coskun states, though he appears unaware of the full extent of Robinson’s controversial history and associations with far-right extremist groups.
Mr Coskun denies that he sees himself as a martyr figure, although he clearly describes his campaign against the Qur’an as “his personal fight” and “his mission.” It is, he insists with considerable passion, his “fundamental democratic right” to burn copies of the Qur’an if he chooses to do so as a form of political and religious protest.
If convicted in the magistrates’ court, Mr Coskun faces the possibility of a substantial fine, though imprisonment seems unlikely for a first offence of this nature. When he walks free from court—whether convicted or acquitted—he has already announced detailed plans for what he describes as a “Qur’an-burning tour” of major British cities, including Liverpool, Birmingham, and Glasgow.
“I am fully prepared to pay whatever cost is necessary,” he declares with grim determination. “It’s not a problem for me. I know exactly what could happen to me as a result of my actions. They are actively pursuing me, but I will not be deterred.”
As evidence of the continued threats against him, Mr Coskun shows a message that was sent to him via his social media account. The message, written in broken English, states bluntly: “I will cut your throat like a sheep… Just wait, you b*****d.” The message is accompanied by threatening emojis and appears to have been sent from an account using a false name.
The forthcoming case at Westminster Magistrates’ Court will be observed closely by legal experts, civil liberties organisations, and religious groups alike. The proceedings threaten to become a landmark case that could potentially establish important precedents regarding the boundaries of free speech, religious criticism, and the extent to which British law protects controversial forms of political protest, even when they cause significant offence to religious communities.
Mr Coskun’s legal team intends to draw heavily upon Sir Keir Starmer’s successful defence of Ms Percy in 2001, arguing that the same legal principles that protected flag desecration should equally protect Qur’an burning as a form of legitimate political expression. The irony that they will be using the current Prime Minister’s own legal arguments against a prosecution brought by his government is not lost on observers of the case.
Lord Young of Acton, the Conservative peer who serves as general secretary of the Free Speech Union, commented ahead of the trial: “In 2001, Sir Keir Starmer successfully appealed the conviction of Lindis Percy for desecrating the American flag during a peace protest. He persuaded the High Court that the denigration of an object of veneration should not constitute a criminal offence under British law, and that the right to peaceful protest in a free and democratic society should not be overridden by spurious arguments about the supposed need to preserve community cohesion in a multicultural society.”
Lord Young continued: “If Sir Keir Starmer were still practising as a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers today, the Free Speech Union might very well have hired him to defend Hamit Coskun in these proceedings. However, I fear that he may have significantly changed his perspective on this crucial issue since ascending to the office of Prime Minister, particularly when the object of veneration in question happens to be a copy of the Qur’an rather than the American flag.”
The case raises profound questions about the nature of free speech in modern Britain, the extent to which religious sensibilities should be protected by criminal law, and whether the same standards of protection should apply to all religious texts equally. The outcome may well determine the future boundaries of acceptable protest and religious criticism in an increasingly diverse and multicultural society.
As Mr Coskun prepares for his day in court, the eyes of civil liberties advocates, religious communities, and legal experts across the United Kingdom will be watching closely to see whether British justice will uphold the principles of free expression that Sir Keir Starmer once championed so eloquently, or whether the current political climate will lead to a different outcome entirely.