.svg)
Read more -BODYGUARD OF HATE: State Now Funds Quran Burner's Safe House
The battle over the limits of free expression in Britain moves to the High Court on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeks to reinstate a conviction against Hamit Coskun. The 51-year-old Turkish asylum seeker, who filmed himself burning a copy of the Quran outside the Turkish Consulate, has sparked a national debate that goes beyond the "right to offend." Critics and legal analysts are now pointing to a disturbing trend: the use of public religious desecration as a calculated tactic to secure permanent residency and "sick celebrityism" by manufacturing a threat of persecution in the protester’s home country, Daily Dazzling Dawn realised.
The UK: A Stage for Calculated Desecration?
An investigation into Hamit Coskun’s history reveals a telling pattern: while he has been an activist against the Turkish government since the early 1990s—even facing arrest and torture in 1993 for his membership in the People's Labour Party—he never once resorted to burning the Quran while living in Turkey. It was only after seeking asylum in the United Kingdom that he adopted this extreme tactic, specifically choosing the highly visible Turkish Consulate in London as his stage. This shift suggests that the act was not a long-held form of expression, but a strategic escalation designed to provoke a violent reaction and international condemnation. By creating a life-threatening conflict on British soil, Coskun effectively "bulletproofed" his asylum claim, ensuring that no court could safely return him to a country where he is now a high-profile target for religious and political retribution.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Free Speech- The fervor surrounding the defense of Coskun has highlighted what many call a glaring hypocrisy in the application of free speech laws. While activists defend the burning of the Quran as protected "political dissent," similar expressions of support—such as those advocating for Palestinian human rights—are frequently suppressed or labeled as hate speech. This selective protection of "liberty" suggests a double standard where certain faiths and ideologies are considered fair game for desecration, while others are shielded from even mild criticism. For the millions of Muslims in the UK, the act is viewed not as a debate but as an intentional attack on their core identity, staged specifically to incite a reaction.
Calculated Desecration: A Shortcut to Residency ? There is growing scrutiny over Coskun’s motives, with many questioning if the protest was a staged maneuver to bolster his asylum case. By performing a highly provocative act in front of a Turkish government building and ensuring it went viral, Coskun created a scenario where he would likely face imprisonment or harm if returned to Turkey. This strategy, dubbed "asylum by provocation," allows individuals to bypass standard immigration routes by forcing the UK to grant protection based on a danger they intentionally created. This brand of "sick celebrityism" turns religious hatred into a career path, exploiting the legal system to avoid deportation while undermining social cohesion.
The Legal Threshold and the Road Ahead- The High Court must now decide if the previous acquittal by Southwark Crown Court failed to account for the "disorderly" nature of the act. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) argues that burning a sacred text while shouting inflammatory slogans—such as "Islam is the religion of terrorism"—is not a protected critique but a criminal act of hostility. If the High Court rules in favor of the DPP, it will set a significant precedent: that the right to free expression is not a license to deliberately provoke violence or use religious desecration as a tool for immigration fraud.
