A teacher who held a placard at a pro-Palestine protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts has been found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence.
Marieha Hussain, 37, denied the prosecution’s allegation that the placard was racially abusive, and her trial at Westminster magistrates court heard that she “quite obviously does not have a racist bone in her body”.
Hussain was acquitted of the charge on Friday, prompting claps and cheers from her supporters in the public gallery.
Outside court after the hearing, she said: “The damage done to my reputation and image can never be undone.
“The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us more, but this trial shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.
“It goes without saying that this ordeal has been agonising for my family and I. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy I’ve been vilified by media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system.
“Nearly a year on from the genocide in Gaza, and despite this trial, I’m more determined than ever to continue using my voice to defend Palestine.”
Clearing Hussain, the district judge Vanessa Lloyd said: “I find that it was part of the genre of political satire and, as such, the prosecution have not proved to the criminal standard that it was abusive.
“The prosecution has also not proved to the criminal standard that you were aware that your placard may be abusive.”
Giving evidence, Hussain said the placard was a “light-hearted piece of political banter”, a way to depict something serious in a “British satirical way”, the court heard.
In his closing speech, Rajiv Menon KC, defending, said: “This prosecution of Ms Hussain is … a disturbing attack on the right of freedom of expression; the right to peaceful protest that did not risk in any shape or form violence or public disorder; the right to anti-racists to criticise members of their own race for pursuing racist policies and using racist rhetoric; the right to satirise our politicians; the right to mock and tease and make fun of our politicians in a light-hearted way that Marieha Hussain attempted to do with her placard.
“That Marieha Hussain of all people is being prosecuted for a racially aggravated offence whilst the likes of Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – aka Tommy Robinson – and Frank Hester are seemingly free to make inflammatory and divisive statements … is, I’m afraid, incomprehensible to many people.”
The court also heard expert opinion on whether the term “coconut” was a racial slur.
Menon said experts struggled to see how the term could be capable of being a slur without “some qualifying word, behaviour, context” that racialises it.
“There is no racialising qualifier” in this case, he said.
He questioned why the prosecution did not produce an expert to say the term “coconut” was a racial slur and why they did not call someone who was offended by Hussain’s placard to give evidence.
The prosecutor, Jonathan Bryan, said the term was a “well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning”.
“You may be brown on the outside, but you’re white on the inside. In other words, you’re a race traitor. You’re less brown or black than you should be.”
Specialist_Leg_650 on
It would’ve set a very low bar for conviction on the basis of racism – one that right wingers would probably have regretted supporting the lowering of.
Apprehensive_Ear7068 on
And to the surprise of nobody racism against white people is perfectly fine.
ThePrizeDisplay on
There’s something quite insidious behind insults like this. It’s saying to somebody “You can be born here, raised here, but you have ‘a people’ you will always owe allegiance to and must conform to”.
It encourages stereotyping and sort of formalises fifth-columnism. It’s deeply damaging to the country’s social fabric.
potpan0 on
Seems like a sensible decision. I’m sure all the people critical of the hate speech laws in Britain will be celebrating the clearing of this conviction…
… right?
youdoyoufella on
Its absolutely ridiculous that she was not charged, its ridiculous that the left feel so comfortable stipulating what peoples politics should be based on race. Lets not also forget that the implication is that supposed bad morals are soley the diminon of white people.
lumpylads on
Liberals will want this to be punished because they believe anti-racism should be obedient and follow the etiquette of white society.
noggadog on
The racists and the coconuts will not be pleased with this!
narayan77 on
right decision, it shows the coconuts are genuine coconuts. I am sure it it was placard against BLM, or a “Pro-Palestine” the offender would have got a jail sentence. BTM coconut water is very good for you after training.
11 Comments
[removed]
Posting again as the previous BBC link by someone else was removed for a different title to website: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ffxvwb/woman_not_guilty_of_a_racially_aggravated_offence/
A teacher who held a placard at a pro-Palestine protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts has been found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence.
Marieha Hussain, 37, denied the prosecution’s allegation that the placard was racially abusive, and her trial at Westminster magistrates court heard that she “quite obviously does not have a racist bone in her body”.
Hussain was acquitted of the charge on Friday, prompting claps and cheers from her supporters in the public gallery.
Outside court after the hearing, she said: “The damage done to my reputation and image can never be undone.
“The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us more, but this trial shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.
“It goes without saying that this ordeal has been agonising for my family and I. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy I’ve been vilified by media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system.
“Nearly a year on from the genocide in Gaza, and despite this trial, I’m more determined than ever to continue using my voice to defend Palestine.”
Clearing Hussain, the district judge Vanessa Lloyd said: “I find that it was part of the genre of political satire and, as such, the prosecution have not proved to the criminal standard that it was abusive.
“The prosecution has also not proved to the criminal standard that you were aware that your placard may be abusive.”
Giving evidence, Hussain said the placard was a “light-hearted piece of political banter”, a way to depict something serious in a “British satirical way”, the court heard.
In his closing speech, Rajiv Menon KC, defending, said: “This prosecution of Ms Hussain is … a disturbing attack on the right of freedom of expression; the right to peaceful protest that did not risk in any shape or form violence or public disorder; the right to anti-racists to criticise members of their own race for pursuing racist policies and using racist rhetoric; the right to satirise our politicians; the right to mock and tease and make fun of our politicians in a light-hearted way that Marieha Hussain attempted to do with her placard.
“That Marieha Hussain of all people is being prosecuted for a racially aggravated offence whilst the likes of Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – aka Tommy Robinson – and Frank Hester are seemingly free to make inflammatory and divisive statements … is, I’m afraid, incomprehensible to many people.”
The court also heard expert opinion on whether the term “coconut” was a racial slur.
Menon said experts struggled to see how the term could be capable of being a slur without “some qualifying word, behaviour, context” that racialises it.
“There is no racialising qualifier” in this case, he said.
He questioned why the prosecution did not produce an expert to say the term “coconut” was a racial slur and why they did not call someone who was offended by Hussain’s placard to give evidence.
The prosecutor, Jonathan Bryan, said the term was a “well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning”.
“You may be brown on the outside, but you’re white on the inside. In other words, you’re a race traitor. You’re less brown or black than you should be.”
It would’ve set a very low bar for conviction on the basis of racism – one that right wingers would probably have regretted supporting the lowering of.
And to the surprise of nobody racism against white people is perfectly fine.
There’s something quite insidious behind insults like this. It’s saying to somebody “You can be born here, raised here, but you have ‘a people’ you will always owe allegiance to and must conform to”.
It encourages stereotyping and sort of formalises fifth-columnism. It’s deeply damaging to the country’s social fabric.
Seems like a sensible decision. I’m sure all the people critical of the hate speech laws in Britain will be celebrating the clearing of this conviction…
… right?
Its absolutely ridiculous that she was not charged, its ridiculous that the left feel so comfortable stipulating what peoples politics should be based on race. Lets not also forget that the implication is that supposed bad morals are soley the diminon of white people.
Liberals will want this to be punished because they believe anti-racism should be obedient and follow the etiquette of white society.
The racists and the coconuts will not be pleased with this!
right decision, it shows the coconuts are genuine coconuts. I am sure it it was placard against BLM, or a “Pro-Palestine” the offender would have got a jail sentence. BTM coconut water is very good for you after training.