Coconut Trial: Not Guilty

Teacher Marieha Hussain found not guilty of racially aggravated public order offence in the "coconut trial".

37 year old teacher Marieha Hussain has been found not guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence at her show trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

The prosecution was brought after Metropolitan Police were directed to a photograph of Hussain’s placard that had been posted on the extreme-right pro-Israeli site Harry’s Place.

Nobody who actually attended or observed the November 11th Palestine solidarity protest complained about Hussain’s placard depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts, and none of the many police who saw the placard on the day saw fit to intervene either.

It was only days later when this entire prosecution was whipped up by the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service at the behest of an extreme-right, Islamophobic, Israel apologist propaganda operation.

In her defence Rajiv Menon KC said in his closing speech that: "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".

He also went on to point out the discrepancy between Hussain’s prosecution and the apparent impunity afforded to far-right figures like Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), and millionaire Tory donor Frank Hester when they do things like spew violent racist rhetoric and instigate riots by spreading misinformation online, and call for politicians they don’t like to be killed.

The howls of dismay at Hussain’s acquittal from the political right just go to prove what a hive of hypocrisy so many of them occupy.

Whenever one of their own is facing prosecution for racism, rioting, or incitement, they repeatedly invoke "free speech" as if it’s a magical "get out of jail free" card. However when it’s a person of colour saying something they don’t like, suddenly they angrily insist that she should be jailed for causing offense, and cry bitter tears of frustration upon their acquittal.

Of course people are entitled to feel offended by the placard, as they’re entitled to feel offended at everything, up to and including facts that they don’t like.

The issue at stake is whether people deserve to be dragged to court to face show trials for having caused offense.

Anyone who believes in "free speech" surely believes the answer is no.

It doesn’t matter if the person causing offense is on the left or the right. Having opinions that other people find distasteful should never be treated as a crime.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s an Asian woman depicting Asian politicians as coconuts to make a political point about their complicity with systemic racism, or a right-winger banging on about "bloody immigrants" and using far-right tropes like adding the suffix "-istan" to the names of British cities.

Yes people are entitled to find their behaviour offensive, and use their own free speech to criticise and condemn, but merely causing offense should never be sufficient to be accused of criminality.

The people who need investigating and prosecuting are those who do things such as:

Participate in racist extreme-right riots.

Incite extreme-right riots by spreading racist misinformation online.

Incite people into carrying out arson attacks on hotels housing refugees.

Incite the killing of politicians based on their ethnicity.

And yes, stating that extreme-right rioters should have their throats cut.

There’s a huge difference between causing offense and real crimes like participating in and/or inciting violence.

The Coconut Trial was an obvious assault on free speech and a massive waste of time and effort that could have been better spent pursuing real criminals, but then this is the kind of thing that happens when police and prosecutors allow their actions to be directed by radically right-wing Islamophobic Israeli propaganda outlets.

After the two-day trial, district judge Vanessa Lloyd found that the placard was "part of the genre of political satire" and ruled that "the prosecution have not proved to the criminal standard that it was abusive".

Genuine supporters of free speech (on the left and the right) should be thankful that in this instance at least, common sense has prevailed.

Please consider setting up a small monthly GoCardless subscription. These really help.