Skip to content

No, no, no, you don’t understand. My racist insult is just fine

What do you think of when you hear the words “racially aggravated public order offence”? Someone being called the N-word or P-word, perhaps? An innocent person being threatened with violence or abuse? Are there images forming in your mind of angry, menacing perpetrators? These are reasonable assumptions. But I would wager that your mental catalogue does not include the figure of a smiling brown woman holding up a placard depicting a coconut tree, with pictures of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman pasted on it.

That woman is Marieha Hussain. Last week, she was in a magistrates court, charged after a picture of her placard at a pro-Palestine march last year was circulated on social media. Individuals and organisations mobilised online and outside the central London court in support of Hussain, and a collective of south Asian diaspora organisations released a statement calling for the “politicised” charges to be dropped. In his defence of Hussain, Rajiv Menon KC argued that the placard was a “political criticism” of Braverman, who “was promoting in different ways a racist political agenda, as evidenced by the Rwanda policy, the racist rhetoric she was using around small boats”, and Rishi Sunak was “either acquiescing to it or being inactive”.

It’s your racist insult that isn’t allowed.

45 thoughts on “No, no, no, you don’t understand. My racist insult is just fine”

  1. “Criminalising such expression as racist is simply a category error. It shows us the blanket notion of equality before the law clashing with reality, with the inequality of life for many in the country and their frustration at how their experiences are erased by a powerful few who claim to represent them in politics. Hussain was not targeting a specific racial group, she was making a specific point about two politicians”

    So making a specific point about a politician who constitutes part of a “powerful few” who claim to represent me in politics is OK if I’m frustrated and I feel my experiences are erased?

    Can I call Sadiq Khan a “traitorous Paki twat”, then, Nesrine?

  2. @simon you’ve done Lammy and sadiq already this morning, if you can get in Diane Abbott before lunch then you win a prize

  3. Simon: «Can I call Sadiq Khan a “traitorous Paki twat”, then, Nesrine?»

    Certainly, but please remember always to call it “satire”.

  4. The term “coconut” broadly refers to someone who is from a non-white ethnic minority background, but behaves in ways that are considered to be white.

    And they hate whites, although they do insist on moving to your country.

  5. What do you think of when you hear the words “racially aggravated public order offence”? Someone being called the N-word or P-word, perhaps?

    I think about a man from Birmingham, coincidentally with the same surname as this woman, who posted online under the pseudonym Chris Nolan (liberally using the P-word) to stir up racial hatred last month.

    I think about the fact that he was due to be sentenced last Friday.

    I think about the fact there are no reports and nothing on the crime court website.

  6. I reckon Hussein should be able to put what she likes on a placard. And so should I or you. Ot say it or write it here or anywhere. There’s no end to chasing down and discriminating between sensitivities. The answer is for everyone to have a thicker skin.

    And kill all the lawyers, of course.

  7. Well, yes Rhoda.

    But no doubt the lovely left would argue that this is interfering with their freedom to say what they please.

    Of course they’d have hysterics at the suggestion that their victims can say what they want, too.

  8. @Steve

    I thought a “coconut” was a white woman who (Cliff knows why!) wants to be black.

    As in kid creole and the coconuts.

    But it could have a variety of meanings I suppose depending where you are.

  9. What do you think of when you hear the words “racially aggravated public order offence”? Someone being called the N-word or P-word, perhaps? An innocent person being threatened with violence or abuse? Are there images forming in your mind of angry, menacing perpetrators? These are reasonable assumptions. But I would wager that your mental catalogue does not include the figure of a smiling brown woman holding up a placard depicting a coconut tree, with pictures of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman pasted on it.

    I think of the double standards involved in this kind of reasoning, especially given institutional discrimination against Whites, which is endemic across the public sector and then vow that we should get rid of the notion of a ‘racially aggravated’ public order offence in totality.

    That woman is Marieha Hussain. Last week, she was in a magistrates court, charged after a picture of her placard at a pro-Palestine march last year was circulated on social media. Individuals and organisations mobilised online and outside the central London court in support of Hussain, and a collective of south Asian diaspora organisations released a statement calling for the “politicised” charges to be dropped. In his defence of Hussain, Rajiv Menon KC argued that the placard was a “political criticism” of Braverman, who “was promoting in different ways a racist political agenda, as evidenced by the Rwanda policy, the racist rhetoric she was using around small boats”, and Rishi Sunak was “either acquiescing to it or being inactive”.

    Because a load of Left wing groups sprang to this woman’s defense it’s somehow different from (For example) Tommy Robinson because?

    <i. Now, you might disagree with that view of Braverman and Sunak, and you might think that even if that opinion of them were accurate, that it’s not very nice to go around calling people coconuts (I know I wouldn’t). But believing that Hussain’s actions met the threshold for legal action is a stretch. She was acquitted on Friday, but the fact that she ended up in court tells us something about the way the concerns and realities of racism have been skewed, and the overzealous policing environment that dominates in this country.

    The term “coconut” broadly refers to someone who is from a non-white ethnic minority background, but behaves in ways that are considered to be white. It is applied to anything from musical preferences to political positions. As a casual judgment, it can be obnoxious and hurtful, implying that there is only a certain way people are allowed to be. Ethnic minorities are not homogenous and enjoy the same freedom as white people to adopt cultural tastes or politics simply based on personal preference.

    You could say exactly the same about the term ‘N%$£er’ and it would be just as biased a take as this one.

    But used in the specific political context on Hussain’s placard, the term reaches for something meaningful about how a cohort of powerful rightwing brown and black politicians have conducted themselves in high office. These figures are criticised for their collusion against other people of colour, in which the credibility bestowed upon them by their own racial backgrounds is used to legitimise policies that harm ethnic minorities and discredit their complaints.

    You have just contradicted yourself in the space of one paragraph – to quote: ‘Ethnic minorities are not homogenous and enjoy the same freedom as white people to adopt cultural tastes or politics simply based on personal preference’ – provided those politics are left of centre?

    What Kemi Badenoch, Sunak, Braverman and Priti Patel all share is that, at various points in their careers, they have drawn on their own backgrounds as racial representatives, but only in the service of promoting a single narrative: that Britain doesn’t need any more anti-racist politics. This is despite the fact that structural racism, clear in the workings of the Home Office,the Windrush scandal, unequal policing, and health and mortality outcomes among black and ethnic minority communities, still persists. Not to mention the sort of direct, non-structural racism that seems only to be taken seriously when it spills out on to the streets.

    The basic thrust of the argument is unarguable. ‘Anti-racist’ policies have led to a huge increase in the level of racism, have created a generation of ‘racial grifters’ like Malik who push poison for a living.

    These politicians are, of course, free to do what they like with their racial capital. But those who disagree with them are also allowed to point out and criticise their actions in their own satirical language. Criminalising such expression as racist is simply a category error. It shows us the blanket notion of equality before the law clashing with reality, with the inequality of life for many in the country and their frustration at how their experiences are erased by a powerful few who claim to represent them in politics. Hussain was not targeting a specific racial group, she was making a specific point about two politicians.

    A lot of words to say that basically anyone ethnic minority can say whatever they like about anyone and unlike a White person not be pilloried or lose everything over something that was misinterpreted?

    Part of the reason why the conversation around terms such as this has become charged is that it has come to symbolise a clash between internal ethnic minority community norms and external ones. Between those who might have been offended by the placard and those who just saw a joke making a familiar political point. The prosecutor said the term “coconut” was a “well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning”. But the question is, to who? And more importantly, who gets to determine which one wins out?

    It’s a question White people have been asking in vain ever since 1997. Why is it in any ‘clash’ between Whites and Non-whites the latter will always have the upper hand? What is it about our political establishment that their self-loathing is so intense they want the indigenous population enslaved or murdered and replaced by people from Alien lands?

    It’s a question that is difficult to pose and answer in a particularly crude and febrile time in terms of public discourse about race. Hussain’s case unfolded in the shadow of a Conservative government that presided over a backsliding in racial progress. In the Sewell report, it threw all its heft behind denying structural racism. It published guidance that said movements for racial equality such as Black Lives Matter were “partisan” and, therefore, should not be “promoted” in classrooms. And it picked high-profile fights over race, such as the one with the England team over their stance on racial equality.

    BLM is of course strictly ‘non- partisan’ and rioted in a very non- partisan fashion.

    We are still reaping the harvest of those years in our political and intellectual landscape – one in which there is still no self-reflection on behalf of the Tories or wider attempt to reverse the damage, and where a woman holding a satirical sign goes through hell and humiliation. It is also important to see what happened to Hussain in the context of the wider legislative backdrop in which, behind the guise of protecting public order, the law has narrowed the scope for political dissent with draconian, and as with Hussain’s case, farcical consequences. Giving the police more powers, cracking down on peaceful protests and imposing lengthy sentences have become the norm. This should be a worry for us all. To this hammer of a legal system, every placard is a nail.

    We noticed that in the response to the recent riots where domestic abusers and convicted rapists were given early release to imprison people who made rude facebook posts. Can’t recall you having much to say on that, though.

    A very good article as it speaks to the mindset of many of those in positions of power. The sheer level of hatred and racism behind such ideologies is truly scary,

  10. Dennis, An Obvious Racist

    You wanted speech policed, Nesrine. You got what you wanted. If you are now unhappy, perhaps a bit of self-reflection is in order.

    Nah, just kidding. Better to look around a blame the first white guy you see.

  11. We must be the only country on earth where replacing / subjugating the ‘indigenous people’ is acceptable and actively encouraged.

    And woe betide us if we have the temerity to complain about it……….

  12. Is there a suitable term of abuse for a Lineker or a Cooper – someone brown on the inside white on the outside. Snow covered dog turd is too long.
    Tbf to Cooper, she looks unhappy and frustrated and might just swing round soon to believing that it’s not the smuggling gangs that are the problem. It’s us for letting them come, from FRANCE.

  13. Is there a suitable term of abuse for a Lineker or a Cooper – someone brown on the inside white on the outside.

    Arsehole works a treat. Although, I am not sure either are brown on the inside, except in the sense of being full of shit.

    Lots of ethnic minorities get bullied for their race. We have to stop racism.

    Agreed. Like that racist scumbag Marieha Hussain bullying Suella Braverman. Or bullying of the white global minority by members of the other 84% of humanity, eg the constant racism spouted by nasty racist shit Nesrine Malik.

  14. Bloke in North Dorset

    According to Andyf’s link its someone who’s been assimilated, I reckon its a lot stronger than that and is meant more like an Uncle Tom insult and that they are subservient to white’s and accept their place and are race traitors like a house Negro.

  15. I believe in people being allowed to say what they like, short of calling for violence.
    That out of the way., coconut is interesting because it is a racist slur, but the slur is detached from the racism since they target two different groups. It’s a slur about a PoC and the racism is directed against white people.
    Under the circumstances, and even with our absurd hate speech laws, I don’t see how the utterer can be found guilty. And she wasn’t.

  16. Under the circumstances, and even with our absurd hate speech laws, I don’t see how the utterer can be found guilty. And she wasn’t

    Are you on drugs and can I get some?

    If it was a white man holding up that sign, he’d be in jail now. People have been sent to prison recently for emojis.

    Judges aren’t interested in the facts of the case, they’re only interested in your skin colour and also rent boys.

  17. coconut is interesting because it is a racist slur, but the slur is detached from the racism since they target two different groups. It’s a slur about a PoC and the racism is directed against white people.

    Drivel.

  18. – “It’s your racist insult that isn’t allowed.”

    Except the case went to court and – better than having the charges dropped – she was acquitted. So it turns out it is allowed after all.

    @Addolff – “We must be the only country on earth where replacing / subjugating the ‘indigenous people’ is acceptable and actively encouraged.”

    Hardly. But you must admit we have been very good at it over the centuries. Not very suprising it has been so popular.

  19. “Except the case went to court and – better than having the charges dropped – she was acquitted. So it turns out it is allowed after all.”

    So what can we call David Lammy then?

  20. Charles – Hardly. But you must admit we have been very good at it over the centuries. Not very suprising it has been so popular.

    All of the nations colonised by Britain still exist, usually in better shape for the experience.

    This idea that “heh, immigration is your punishment for your ancestors being better at war and technology than the fuzzy wuzzies were 200 years ago *smirk*” needs to be part of the circular economy.

    Western nations are being deliberately murdered. They’re trying to take away your rights, your means of making a living, and even the country you grew up in. This shouldn’t really be a political thing, there shouldn’t be a pro-national-suicide or a pro-poverty-and-violence lobby, but here we are.

  21. BTW, I haven’t been accused of being a Putin shill for a while (despite me not having a good word to say about Putin and repeatedly referring to him as a “gangster” who will likely end up in Hell, but whatchagonnado?).

    But I will say this about Putin, Xi and the rest of the Axis of Evil (i.e. most of the planet outside USA + satellite states):

    They’re not trying to make their own people poorer, are they?

    Only in the West do our politicians piously declare that we, our children, and our children’s children, if heterosexuality is still legal by then, shall become significantly poorer, to the tune of trillions of pounds we don’t have, to fund Net Zero.

    Only in the West do governments insist on deliberately causing massive population churn – and all the unpleasant and damaging and expensive second order effects that has in a densely populated country with a mature economy – through immigration. The Pakistanis, Iranians, Israelis, etc. successfully deport yuge numbers of illegal/unwanted immigrants every year and nobody blinks an eye.

    No, the average Chinaman can realistically look forward to cheap central heating and plenty of affordable cars, holidays and consumer goods, as his income rises. We can look forward to police SWAT teams abseiling through your window at 4 am because you criticised heat pumps on Facebook (and also didn’t respect zer pronouns, bigot).

    Net Zero is economic Unilateral Disarmament. No wonder the BRICS are egging us on, while sniggering. Remember how everybody with half a brain cell laughed at CND? And rightfully so.

  22. The aboriginal Australians, and natives of North America are in a bad position after the British Empire take over.
    British India had tens of millions of deaths in famines during the British Empire.
    Ireland saw 2 million deaths in the potato famine under British rule.

  23. Marius: «coconut is interesting because it is a racist slur, but the slur is detached from the racism since they target two different groups. It’s a slur about a PoC and the racism is directed against white people.
    Drivel.»

    I think Clovis has an interesting point. The “coconut” label suggests that coloured folk so designated are betraying their ‘heritage’ while simultaneously stigmatising white folk for their deplorable whiteness or their supposed white supramacist instincts which is now almost a given in CRT. It’s worth understanding a post before dismissing it.

  24. Blobby: «British India had tens of millions of deaths in famines during the British Empire»

    Are you sure? Wasn’t it hundreds of millions?

    «Ireland saw 2 million deaths in the potato famine under British rule.»

    Yes but potatoes come from the Andes (and Ely) so this one was down to the spics. Also Tony Blair already apologised for this though he didn’t have needed to.

  25. Ireland saw 2 million deaths in the potato famine under British rule.
    The Micks were the ones chose to grow potatoes. No one insisted they did. It’s a lazy man’s crop. They also had a rapid rise in population due to the increase in food availability. English could have chosen the same path. But they didn’t.

  26. Interesting Blobby.

    I’d argue that there are lots more abos now than there were before the wicked whites arrived. Of course this depends on how you define an abo. The shriekers seem to scream louder the whiter their skins these days.

    Though to be fair, we’ve been drunkards for millennia. So the abos just aren’t as used to booze as we are. But they’re getting there.

  27. @blobby – what happened before the Empire in what is now called India (but wasn’t prior to independence)?

    Did anyone care enough to keep records? Or bother to count such things?

    Or was it those damn colonials with their rules, railways, writing and similar new-fangled untraditional and non-indigenous activities?

  28. Charles @ 7.52, demonstrating another problem of those on the left – it (and IT could be anything) is only wrong when whitey does it……If it weren’t for double standards etc.

    blobby @ 8.57, I look forward to your post telling us just how idyllic life was in India in the good old days, you know, before the British turned up.
    Mentioning of course the 80 million Hindu’s slaughtered by moslems.

  29. On racism: I read this, this morning https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/16/migrant-camps-smuggling-gangs-wont-work-france-britain/
    I did some years ago when “the Calais jungle” was still going, before it was bulldozed down….The French police stopped us and asked what we were doing with these “Islamists”. The police there do not hide what they think about these migrants: they tear gas them, beat them and smash their phones, which represent their entire worlds. They’re a record of their journey, a connection to where they have come from and where they want to go.
    We’ll leave why a British journalist is interfering in French affairs to another day. But that is racism. Not what particular words one chooses. Not saying I’m critical of the French police, having lived in the Pas de Calais area. That is the way to get rid of the “asylum seeker” problem. If the sods were treated the same way the UK side of La Manche, the French wouldn’t have their problem, either. There is nothing wrong with racism in the correct place. A French person from Paris crossing the Channel on the ferry to do a little shopping in London is an entirely different prospect to an African crossing illegally with the intention to take up UK residence

  30. Steve

    ‘I pay you a f$$%ing salary’

    You’re right as ever. To be frank even North Korea isn’t contemplating Net Zero nor do they allow molestation of children under the ‘LGBTQ’ banner. So in so many ways our country is governed by the least patriotic, most shameful collection of quislings anywhere in the world.

  31. @TMB ” It’s worth understanding a post before dismissing it.”
    Thank you. I was despairing of the readership’s ability to parse English for a minute there.

  32. britinkiwi – records were kept In India before the Empire. They had people who could read and write before the British arrived.
    Reading and writing was not invented in Britain.

  33. records were kept In India before the Empire

    Excellent. And what do these records tell us about famines and other deaths, given that India (except when the Moghuls occupied the northern half) was a collection of princedoms, each at daggers-drawn with its neighbours?

  34. That’s a very bad, shitty, piece.

    1) It doesn’t in fact say anything about India before the Brits. So it doesn’t support your case.

    2) It’s really about Tharoor and he’s a lying shit all of whom’s economic numbers are wrong.

    So, you know….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *