Britain’s Blasphemy Betrayal: Enforcing Sharia, Erasing Freedom, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

On June 2, 2025, Britain took a dark step toward its own destruction. The conviction of Hamit Coskun for burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London, under the guise of a "religiously aggravated public order offence," is no mere legal misstep, it's the resurrection of blasphemy laws, tailored to shield Islam and pave the way for sharia's grip on the nation. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and District Judge John McGarva have betrayed British values, twisting public order laws into a weapon to silence dissent and protect Islamic sensibilities. This case, alongside rampant migration and cultural erasure, is a screaming alarm: Britain is on the road to Islamisation, sacrificing free speech and sovereignty to appease a globalist agenda. From a nationalist perspective, this is the beginning of the end, a capitulation that must be fought with every ounce of resolve.

Hamit Coskun, a 50-year-old Kurdish-Armenian atheist, set fire to a Quran on February 13, 2025, outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge, protesting Turkey's Islamist-leaning President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Shouting "f*** Islam" and "Quran is burning," his act was raw, provocative, and undeniably protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as political speech. Yet, the CPS charged him under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for "religiously aggravated" disorderly conduct, accusing him of causing "harassment, alarm or distress" to Muslims. District Judge McGarva, in a June 2 ruling, fined Coskun £240 plus a £96 surcharge, branding his protest "highly provocative" and driven by a "deep-seated hatred of Islam."

The CPS's original charge was even more sinister, targeting Coskun for harassing "the religious institution of Islam," a legal fiction, as institutions cannot be victims under British law. Akua Reindorf KC, a human rights lawyer, slammed this as "tantamount to a charge of blasphemy," arguing it sought to grant Islam special protection. After pushback from the National Secular Society (NSS) and Free Speech Union (FSU), the CPS pivoted to focus on hostility toward Muslims, but the conviction still hinged on Quran-burning, effectively criminalising desecration of a religious text. The NSS warned this verdict "could criminalise damaging a Quran in public," thrusting Britain "dangerously close" to enforcing sharia-style blasphemy codes.

McGarva's ruling is a disgrace. He dismissed blasphemy accusations but cited the violent assault on Coskun by passerby Moussa Kadri, who pleaded guilty, as evidence that the protest was likely to cause distress. This victim-blaming logic, where Coskun's free speech is punished because it provoked an attacker, mirrors the sharia principle that blasphemy justifies retribution. By valuing Islamic sensitivities over individual rights, the British state has adopted a theocratic stance, betraying its secular heritage.

The Coskun case is not a one-off but part of a chilling trend. In February 2025, a Manchester man pleaded guilty to a similar Quran-burning charge, cementing the precedent. Meanwhile, a Christian preacher in Walsall was acquitted in March 2025 for denouncing the Quran, due to insufficient CPS evidence, highlighting inconsistent enforcement. Coskun's question "Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a Bible?" cuts to the core. No comparable cases exist for Christian texts, suggesting a hierarchy where Islam is untouchable. The CPS's refusal to disclose how often "the religious institution of Islam" appears in indictments, citing excessive review time in a Freedom of Information response, reeks of cover-up, hinting at widespread use of this pseudo-blasphemy charge.

This selective protection aligns with political pressures. In 2024, Labour MP Tahir Ali pushed Keir Starmer to ban religious text desecration, a call Starmer didn't reject. Despite assurances that "no blasphemy laws will be introduced," the Coskun verdict proves otherwise. The Muslim Council of Britain's Miqdaad Versi defends the verdict, claiming Quran-burning incites hatred, yet ignores why similar acts against other faiths go unpunished. This double standard is no accident, it's a deliberate step toward Islamisation.

Coskun's conviction is a milestone in Britain's march toward sharia. Blasphemy laws, standard in Islamic states like Pakistan, where Quran desecration can lead to execution, are creeping into British law through public order statutes. Denmark's 2023 ban on "inappropriate treatment" of religious texts, spurred by Quran burnings, shows Europe's susceptibility. Britain's version, enacted without parliamentary debate, is a backdoor betrayal of democracy. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick called the verdict "wrong," warning it stifles free speech. The NSS notes that such laws "embolden extremists," as seen in the 2023 Wakefield case, where an autistic boy faced death threats for scuffing a Quran, and police deferred to a mosque's "hearing" rather than defend him.

Secularly, free speech is the bedrock of liberal democracy, protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. Coskun's protest, targeting Erdoğan's regime, was political speech deserving robust protection, as argued by his lawyer Katy Thorne KC. The CPS's conflation of criticising Islam with harming Muslims creates a de facto "right not to be offended," which the NSS warns "threatens free expression." Historically, England's blasphemy laws, abolished in 2008, protected only Christianity, reflecting a Christian-majority society. Reinstating them for Islam alone violates equality under the law, granting one religion supremacy in a supposedly secular state.

Britain's plummeting trust in institutions (43% per the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer) and rising unrest, from ULEZ vandalism to migrant-related tensions, signaldecay. The Coskun verdict, blaming the victim for inciting violence, echoes sharia's acceptance of religious sanctity over individual rights, clashing with Enlightenment principles of liberty and reason.

Defenders, like the Muslim Engagement and Development group, argue Quran-burning is hate speech that incites violence against Muslims. Yet, Coskun was the victim, assaulted by Kadri, whose trial is delayed until 2027, exposing judicial bias. Punishing speech for its potential to provoke inverts justice, empowering mob rule, a sharia tactic. Others claim public order laws prevent unrest in diverse societies. However, Rakib Ehsan in The Independent argues that privileging Islam fuels anti-Muslim resentment, fracturing cohesion. Humanists UK notes that blasphemy laws increase religious violence by emboldening extremists, as seen in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The conviction of Hamit Coskun is Britain's point of no return, a backdoor blasphemy law that crowns Islam untouchable and buries free speech. The CPS and Judge McGarva have handed sharia a victory, criminalising dissent to appease a growing demographic and globalist elites. With open borders flooding Britain, 40,000 migrants projected in 2025, and cultural erasure rewriting history, the nation is on its knees. This is not a warning; it's a requiem. The British state, once a bastion of liberty, now enforces Islamic orthodoxy, blaming victims while excusing attackers. If this is not sharia's shadow, what is? Nationalists must rise, through protests, votes, or legal defiance, or watch Britain vanish into a theocratic abyss, where the Quran is sacred, and freedom is a memory. The FSU's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is a flicker of hope, but only a mass awakening can stop this surrender. The time for silence is over; Britain's soul is at stake. And likewise the rest of the West.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/england-now-has-a-blasphemy-law/