Coconut placard of Sunak and Braverman was ‘racially abusive’, court hears
Marieha Hussain, 37, pleaded not guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence.
Your support helps us to tell the story
As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.
Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.
Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election
Andrew Feinberg
White House Correspondent
A placard held by a teacher at a pro-Palestine protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts was “racially abusive”, a court has heard.
Marieha Hussain, 37, pleaded not guilty to a racially aggravated public order offence and her trial began at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Thursday morning.
Prosecutor Jonathan Bryan said the term “coconut” was a “well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning”.
Coconut is a well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning
An image of the placard, held by Hussain at a protest on November 11, was shown in court. It showed cut-out pictures of Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman placed alongside coconuts under a tree.
Defending, Rajiv Menon KC said the placard was “not abusive”, but a “political criticism” of then-prime minister Mr Sunak and then-home secretary Ms Braverman.
Opening the prosecution’s case, Mr Bryan said: “We say that the placard was abusive, it was racially abusive.
“There were people present who were likely to have been caused harassment, alarm and distress by seeing what was on that placard.”
He added: “Coconut is 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.”
Mr Bryan said Hussain, of Brands Hill Avenue, High Wycombe, had “crossed the line between legitimate political expression” and moved into “racial insult”.
Defending, Mr Menon said the “humorous and satirical” placard was “clearly a hand-drawn image”.
He added: “It was a pictorial attempt to criticise the policy of Rishi Sunak and particularly Suella Braverman and their race politics given what was happening at the time in the country.”
“There is nothing gratuitous or gross in any way about the placard. This placard was political speech.”
Mr Menon said the trial involved “very different territory than the familiar terms of racial abuse”.
He told the court: “What she is saying is Suella Braverman – then home secretary, sacked two days after – 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 the prime minister was either quiescing to it or being inactive. It was a political criticism of these two particular politicians.”
In a prepared statement read out to court by the prosecution, Hussain said she had attended the pro-Palestine protest with her family.
She said in the statement: “The march progressed very slowly and in the course we passed many police officers who did not suggest that anything provocative or disturbing was taking place.
“At no stage did anyone on the march suggest that the posters were an expression of hate to anyone in society.”
There is nothing gratuitous or gross in any way about the placard. This placard was political speech
Hussain said the placard was in opposition to an “exceptional manifestation of hatred towards vulnerable or minority groups emanating from the home secretary and supported by the prime minister”.
She added in the statement: “I find it astonishing it could be conceived as a message of hate.”
An image on the other side of the placard depicted the former home secretary as “Cruella Braverman”, Hussain said in her statement.
Metropolitan Police communications manager Chris Humphreys told the court that images such as that of the placard came to the attention of the police service if the force’s social media account was “tagged in the post”.
He added that the Metropolitan Police “actively monitors” accounts that frequently post protest-related images.
Mr Menon told the court that the image of the placard had been posted by an X, formerly Twitter, account with the username Harry’s Place.
He asked Mr Humphreys: “Are you aware that Harry’s Place is a secretive political blog headquartered in Washington DC that has a particular interest in opposing any criticism of the Israeli state?”
Mr Humphreys replied: “I know Harry’s Place is an anonymous political blog.”
As the trial began, around 40 demonstrators waved Palestine flags and listened to speeches outside the court building.
The trial continues.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.