Backdoor Blasphemy Ban Hits UK Court

A single UK court appeal could turn “public order” law into a backdoor blasphemy ban—where the threat of violence decides what citizens are allowed to say.

Story Snapshot

A High Court hearing set for February 17, 2026, will consider the Crown Prosecution Service appeal tied to Hamit Coskun’s Quran-burning protest outside Turkey’s London consulate.
Coskun was stabbed during the 2025 protest; his attacker received a suspended sentence, while Coskun initially faced a religiously aggravated public order conviction before a later acquittal.
A Crown Court judge ruled UK law contains no blasphemy offense and defended a “right to offend,” but prosecutors are seeking to revive the conviction.
UK officials say there is “no return” to blasphemy laws, yet critics point to policing and charging patterns that can still chill speech.
The case has become a flashpoint for whether the state will protect expression consistently—or reward intimidation with legal consequences for the speaker.

The Coskun case and the “right to offend” now on the line

Hamit Coskun, a Turkish-born atheist of Armenian-Kurdish background, drew international attention after burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge on February 13, 2025, as a political protest against Islamification in Turkey. A passer-by, Moussa Kadri, stabbed Coskun during the incident. Coskun later faced a religiously aggravated public order conviction before a Southwark Crown Court acquittal in October 2025 that emphasized UK law has no blasphemy offense.

The Crown Prosecution Service is now appealing that acquittal, with a High Court hearing scheduled for February 17, 2026. Supporters of Coskun argue the appeal tests a basic principle: whether citizens retain the freedom to express unpopular or offensive ideas without the state treating “religious offense” as a proxy crime. The earlier Crown Court ruling underscored that speech protections include expression that shocks or offends, precisely because polite speech rarely needs legal protection.

How a “public order” theory can resemble a blasphemy standard

England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2006, and multiple public statements since then have reiterated that formal blasphemy statutes are not returning. The controversy is that prosecutors and police can still rely on public order and “religiously aggravated” frameworks in ways that feel like blasphemy enforcement, especially when the alleged harm centers on insult to a faith rather than threats or targeted harassment of individuals.

The Coskun dispute crystallizes a worry civil-liberties advocates have raised for years: “process as punishment.” Even when defendants ultimately win, repeated arrests, bail restrictions, and extended proceedings can deter ordinary people—teachers, pastors, activists, and journalists—from speaking candidly. When the legal system signals that religiously provocative speech is uniquely risky, the result is self-censorship. That outcome undermines the premise of a free society, where ideas are contested with argument, not managed by state power.

Government assurances vs. enforcement reality

Officials have publicly insisted the UK will tackle hatred while avoiding a blasphemy-style regime. Separately, political leaders have also adjusted language around definitions of Islamophobia, with reporting indicating a move away from wording that could blur the line between criticizing beliefs and attacking people. That shift matters because expansive definitions can migrate into institutional rules, workplace discipline, and policing practices—creating unofficial speech codes that are difficult to challenge democratically.

Still, the record described across recent reporting shows why skepticism persists. Critics point to cases involving Christian pastors and other speakers who attracted police attention over comments, plus repeated controversies surrounding Quran-burning protests and “hate incident” practices. None of these examples prove a coordinated policy to reintroduce blasphemy laws, but they do illustrate how enforcement discretion can pressure speech—particularly when authorities prioritize “community cohesion” and the avoidance of unrest over viewpoint neutrality.

Why the appeal outcome matters beyond one defendant

The most consequential question is whether the legal system rewards the “veto” created by intimidation. Coskun was stabbed during his protest, yet the dispute now centers on whether his expression should be punished because it provoked outrage and disorder. A standard that penalizes speakers when others react violently incentivizes future threats. It shifts responsibility from aggressors to the person expressing the controversial view, which erodes the rule-of-law principle that the state punishes the perpetrator, not the target.

Britain's Free Speech at Risk: Now a De Facto Blasphemy Ban Loomshttps://t.co/HnrNrr8XoS

— RedState (@RedState) February 17, 2026

For Americans watching from the outside—especially after years of “woke” speech policing at home—the UK fight is a cautionary tale about how quickly liberties can be narrowed without passing a formal blasphemy statute. The United States has stronger constitutional speech protections than Britain, but the underlying pressure tactics are familiar: vague “harm” theories, selective enforcement, and public-private coordination that chills dissent. The High Court decision will not just settle one appeal; it will signal whether Britain’s post-blasphemy era is real in practice.