Koran-burning protester says attacker’s lenient sentence signals two-tier justice in UK
Knife attack during a protest outside the Turkish consulate ended with a suspended sentence for the assailant, sparking debate over free speech and judicial fairness.
A man who slashed a protester who had set fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in Knightsbridge was given a 20-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, prompting accusations of two-tier justice and renewed debate over free expression in the United Kingdom. Moussa Kadri, 59, admitted assault and possessing a bladed article in a public place after the February 13 incident, in which he confronted Hamit Coskun as Coskun burned the Islamic text and shouted remarks at the protest.
The attack occurred as Coskun, a 51-year-old activist reported to be of Kurdish and Armenian heritage, held a flaming Koran aloft during a demonstration. Video of the confrontation shows Kadri returning to the scene after first confronting Coskun and then slashing at him with a bread knife in front of onlookers. Kadri testified in court that he was protecting his religion, a claim that the judge said did not excuse his conduct. The sentencing, handed down at Southwark Crown Court, also required Kadri to perform 150 hours of unpaid work and undergo 10 days of rehabilitation. The court described Kadri’s loss of temper as disgraceful and warned that the use of blades is a curse on the community.
Coskun has criticized the verdict as evidence of double standards in how Islamist actions are treated in Britain. In an exclusive interview from his Midlands home, he told the Daily Mail that the decision to spare Kadri from prison sends “a morale boost for Islamists” and constitutes a “two-tier justice system.” He argued that Kadri’s claim of protecting his religion should have faced harsher consequences, especially given the attack took place in a highly public and televised setting. Coskun said the ruling undermined the rule of law and suggested that Islamist influence was growing within the UK political landscape. He added that if the attacker had not been Muslim, he believed a prison sentence would have been more likely.
The court records show Coskun had previously been convicted in Westminster Magistrates’ Court in June of a religiously aggravated public order offence connected to the burning incident. An appeal against that conviction is due to be heard next month. Kadri, who lives in Kensington, west London, defended his actions before the judge, arguing that he reacted in the heat of the moment after Coskun’s provocative act. His defence counsel noted Kadri expressed remorse for his behavior, but the court maintained that the length of his temper and use of a weapon could not be justified by his stated motive.
The ruling drew comments from political and civil-society figures who argued that it underscored tensions around freedom of expression in a pluralistic society. Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, described Kadri’s sentence as sending a “green light” to others who might take vigilante action in response to perceived insults to religion. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, emphasized that free expression and peaceful protest remain valid tools in a democratic society but should not be met with violence. He stressed that individuals must be free to criticize or challenge ideas without fear of physical harm.
In response to the sentencing, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting an explanation for why prosecutors chose not to pursue tougher charges against Kadri. Jenrick shared clip of the attack and asked for clarity on how prosecutors assess violence linked to religious offense. Claire Coutinho, Shadow Energy Secretary, also commented, noting that slashing at someone over religious beliefs is unacceptable and that the absence of a prison term for Kadri raises questions about proportionality in sentencing for such offenses.
Supporters of greater protections for free expression argued that the case should not chill legitimate debate about religious ideas. They cautioned against equating criticism with violence and highlighted the importance of ensuring that legal responses to blasphemy allegations do not undermine open discussion. The government has repeatedly denied proposals to revive any formal blasphemy law in the United Kingdom, stressing instead that current statutes cover offenses such as religiously aggravated harassment or violence.
The Knightsbridge incident and Kadri’s sentencing sit at the intersection of protest rights, religious sensitivities, and public safety. Coskun’s burning of the Koran, described by some as a provocative act, was ruled to be an offence aggravated by religious hostility, while Kadri’s reaction was deemed unlawful but not criminally punished by imprisonment. The case continues to shape debates about the boundaries of free speech in a multi-faith society and how courts balance expression with the protection of individuals from violent responses to offensive behavior.