 |
| 22-September-2024 |
Yes, I’ve been called a “coconut”. When Marieha Hussain wrote the word on a placard she carried on a Palestine march last November, it was to deride Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman, the then prime minister and home secretary, for their obnoxious immigration policies and their support for Israel’s war in Gaza. But it is a term used also to disparage those on the left whose political views are deemed too “white”.
Hussain’s placard, one side of which depicted the faces of Sunak and Braverman superimposed on coconuts under a palm tree, landed her in court, charged with a racially aggravated public order offence. Last week she was cleared, the judge accepting it as legitimate “political satire”.
“Coconut” – meaning being brown or black on the outside but white on the inside – is a cheap, distasteful term of abuse, but not one that should be policed by the state (though Hussain is not the first person to find herself in court for using the word). Both its use by antiracists and attempts by the authorities to criminalise that use raise wider questions about the policing of speech and the character of antiracism.
“The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us more,” Hussain reflected after her court victory, “but this trial shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.” There is, in fact, a long history of hate speech laws being used to criminalise minorities. The 1965 Race Relations Act introduced Britain’s first legal ban on the incitement of racial hatred. Among the first to be convicted, and imprisoned, under its provisions was the Trinidadian Black Power activist Michael X.
Hussain’s placard, one side of which depicted the faces of Sunak and Braverman superimposed on coconuts under a palm tree, landed her in court, charged with a racially aggravated public order offence. Last week she was cleared, the judge accepting it as legitimate “political satire”.
“Coconut” – meaning being brown or black on the outside but white on the inside – is a cheap, distasteful term of abuse, but not one that should be policed by the state (though Hussain is not the first person to find herself in court for using the word). Both its use by antiracists and attempts by the authorities to criminalise that use raise wider questions about the policing of speech and the character of antiracism.
“The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us more,” Hussain reflected after her court victory, “but this trial shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.” There is, in fact, a long history of hate speech laws being used to criminalise minorities. The 1965 Race Relations Act introduced Britain’s first legal ban on the incitement of racial hatred. Among the first to be convicted, and imprisoned, under its provisions was the Trinidadian Black Power activist Michael X.
Continue reading @ The Guardian.
No comments