Quran Burner In London May Seek US Asylum As Free Speech Fight Escalates

A man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish Consulate in London may soon become the center of an international free speech battle and the Trump administration is paying close attention.

Hamit Coskun, a 51-year-old of Armenian-Kurdish descent, was initially fined after setting fire to a copy of the Quran on February 13, 2025, while shouting anti-Islam slogans. Now, as U.K. prosecutors attempt to reinstate his overturned conviction, discussions are reportedly underway about whether he could receive U.S. asylum if British courts rule against him.

At the heart of the controversy is a larger question: Is free speech in Britain under threat?

Coskun says he fled Turkey after Islamic extremists “destroyed” his family’s life and jailed him for protesting Islamist governance. In London, he staged his protest outside the Turkish Consulate. During the demonstration, he was attacked by a passerby, Moussa Kadri, who chased him with a knife, kicked him, and spat on him. Kadri later received a suspended prison sentence after being convicted of assault and possessing a bladed article in public.

Coskun, however, faced prosecution for his protest.

Initially charged with harassing the “religious institution of Islam,” his case drew backlash from free speech advocates, including the National Secular Society and the Free Speech Union. They argued prosecutors were effectively reviving blasphemy laws that the U.K. formally abolished in 2008.

In June 2025, Coskun was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offense and fined. But in October, a judge overturned the conviction, ruling that while burning a Quran was “desperately upsetting and offensive,” free expression must protect speech that can “offend, shock or disturb.”

Now the Crown Prosecution Service is appealing that ruling at the High Court in London.

If the conviction is reinstated, Coskun says he may be forced to leave Britain.

“For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent,” he said in an interview. “I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism.”

According to reports, senior officials in the Trump administration have taken note of the case as part of broader concerns about free speech restrictions in Europe. The possibility of granting U.S. asylum has reportedly been discussed if British authorities succeed in overturning the judge’s ruling.

The debate comes amid growing transatlantic tensions over free speech. In 2025, President Donald Trump criticized Britain’s online speech laws, warning that “strange things are happening” and calling the trend “not a good thing.” At the Munich Security Conference the same year, Vice President JD Vance stated bluntly, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

The Coskun case has become symbolic of that concern.

Supporters argue that burning a Quran, while offensive to many, falls squarely within the bounds of political protest especially in a country that prides itself on liberal democratic values. They point to longstanding Western legal standards protecting controversial or provocative expression, including rulings in the United States that shield even deeply offensive speech under the First Amendment.

Critics, however, argue that such acts risk inflaming tensions and disrupting public order.

The stakes are significant. The U.K.’s Public Order Act has increasingly been used in cases involving religious offense, and debates over online and offline speech have intensified in recent years. Meanwhile, polling across Western nations shows rising concern over the limits of acceptable speech, with majorities in both the U.S. and Europe expressing worry that people are self-censoring out of fear of legal or social consequences.

If Coskun ultimately seeks U.S. asylum, it would mark a remarkable reversal: an activist fleeing a NATO ally over speech restrictions and looking to Washington for protection.

For many Americans, the case underscores why free speech remains a defining issue. The principle does not protect speech because it is polite or popular. It protects speech precisely when it is controversial.

Whether British courts uphold that principle could determine not only Coskun’s future, but also whether the so-called West–West divide over free expression continues to widen.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed.