Marieha Hussain: How a ‘coconut’ placard ended up on trial

Marieha Hussain had marched for three hours with her family, and the children with them were getting tired.

“We opened some snacks to keep them going,” she said. They were part of a 300,000-strong group at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in central London on 11 November 2023.

“Then, somebody from my side of the street where I was standing called out and asked: ‘Can I take a picture of your placard?’”

This wasn’t the first time she’d been asked for a picture. Her family’s placards, she said, had drawn a lot of attention.

On one side of the placard was a cartoon of Suella Braverman, then the Home Secretary, dressed like Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmatians. Ms Hussain held up the sign and posed.

“The voice called out, ‘no, not that one, can you turn it around please?’ – and I did.

“And that was it.”

Her account was told to Westminster Magistrates Court this week during her two-day trial on a charge of a racially aggravated public order offence.

She was accused of this offence – of which she was found not guilty on Friday – because of what was on the other side of that placard.

It was a drawing of a palm tree with coconuts falling off it; pasted over two of those coconuts were the faces of Ms Braverman and of the then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

At the heart of this case was the word “coconut” – and whether it could be considered racially abusive.

Ms Hussain told the court that on the drive home from the demonstration, a family friend messaged to tell her that her photo had been posted by an anonymous right-wing blog called Harry’s Place and that it was going viral on X (it has since been viewed more than four million times).

“It doesn’t get more racist than this,” the post said. “Among anti-racists you get the worst racists of them all.”

Underneath she then saw a reply from the Metropolitan Police, saying that they were “actively looking for” her.

Chris Humphreys, a member of Metropolitan Police staff working in the force’s communications team that day, saw the post after the Met was tagged in it. “The account that posted it typically generates a significant response,” Mr Humphreys told the court. He was called to give evidence on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service.

In the 10 months since that day, anonymous accounts on social media called her a racist while tabloid newspapers published details of her family and the cost of her parents’ home. Ms Hussain, 37, also lost her job as a secondary school teacher.

After the Metropolitan Police posted that they wished to identify Ms Hussain, she consulted with solicitors and voluntarily attended a police station three days later, on 14 November, she told the court.

There, she gave them a prepared statement outlining who she was, what had happened that day, and her reasons for making the sign.

“I am a teacher of almost 10 years standing with an academic background in psychology,” she wrote in the statement. “It is exceptionally difficult to convey complex, serious political statements in a nutshell, and we did our best.”

She was not formally charged until six months later, in May this year. She found out she was charged from a journalist working for Al Jazeera, she told the court.

At this point, the support for Ms Hussain from activists and campaigners grew increasingly vocal. When she first appeared at the magistrates court in June – visibly pregnant – to enter her not guilty plea, protesters stood outside the court held copycat “coconut” placards.

The term “coconut” is instantly recognisable to many people from black and Asian communities in the UK.

It is a word with a generally negative meaning and can range from light-hearted banter to more severe criticism or insults.

What the court had to contend with was whether, on Ms Hussain’s placard, it could be considered racially abusive.

Prosecutor Jonathan Bryan argued coconut was a well-known racial slur. “[It has] a very clear meaning – you may be brown on the outside, but you are white on the inside,” Mr Bryan told the court.

“In other words, you’re a ‘race traitor’ – you’re less brown or black than you should be.”

Mr Bryan said that Ms Hussain had crossed the line from legitimate political expression to racial insult.

This was not the first time the term “coconut” has come before the courts: in 2009 Shirley Brown, the first black Liberal Democrat elected to Bristol City Council, used the term to describe Conservative councillor Jay Jethwa during a heated debate about funding for the council’s Legacy Commission.

The following year, in 2010, Ms Brown was convicted of racial harassment for the comment. She was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £620 in costs. Mr Bryan referenced Ms Brown’s case during this week’s trial.

For Ms Hussain, one of those who’s been particularly fervent in his support is the writer and anti-racism campaigner Nels Abbey.

“The word ‘coconut’ didn’t fall out of a coconut tree, to quote Kamala Harris’s mum,” Mr Abbey told me after the trial’s first day, adding that the word “fell out of our experience as former colonised people”.

The term emerged as a way of critiquing those who “collaborated with our oppressors”, he said.

“This is our language,” he said. “We share this language because we share a history, we share origins and share a community… You cannot criminalise people’s history, and the language that emerged from that.”

In court, this was echoed by two academic experts in racism who gave evidence in support of Ms Hussain – Prof Gus John and Prof Gargi Bhattacharyya.

They quoted postcolonial theorist Frantz Fanon, Black liberation activist Marcus Garvey, the late poet Benjamin Zephaniah, and comedian Romesh Ranganathan, who has frequently joked that his mum calls him a coconut for not speaking Tamil.

These were citations more commonly heard in a university lecture hall than a courtroom.

The court heard that the investigating team had also contacted three experts in racism to give evidence for the prosecution, but they had all refused. One of those, Black Studies specialist Prof Kehinde Andrews, sent “quite a lengthy response” saying the word was not a racial slur, and asked that this be shared with the CPS.

Prof John told the court he was “disappointed” that the CPS hadn’t called any experts to support their case.

“I’d have wanted to be informed and educated on when coconut is a racist slur,” he said. “I would have loved to see the evidence of that. I’m not aware of that at all.”

Ms Hussain wrote in her statement that “coconut” was “common language, particularly in our culture”.

Asked by her barrister Mr Menon what she meant by that, she answered that she had grown up hearing the word used among South Asians.

“If I’m truly honest, sometimes, when I was younger, my own dad called me a coconut,” she said, prompting laughter from the public gallery.

Ms Hussain also argued that her use of the term was a form of political critique against what she said were “politicians in high office who perpetuate and push racist policies”.

On Friday afternoon, District Judge Vanessa Lloyd ruled that the placard was “part of the genre of political satire”, and that the prosecution had “not proved to a criminal standard that it was abusive”.

As the verdict was read out, cheers and whooping erupted from the public gallery while Ms Hussain burst into tears.

Outside the court 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 the media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system.”

But, she said, “I’m more determined than ever to continue using my voice” for Palestinians.