The ‘coconut trial’ reveals the folly of hate-speech laws

For once, free speech has prevailed in England’s courts. Last week, in what became known as the ‘coconut trial’, teacher Marieha Hussain was acquitted of a racially aggravated public-order offence. She caught the authorities’ attention back in November, when she was photographed holding a placard at a ‘pro-Palestine’ demo depicting then prime minister Rishi Sunak and then home secretary Suella Braverman as coconuts.

If her arrest wasn’t outrageous enough, five of Hussain’s supporters were also arrested for displaying coconut placards and placing coconuts on the pavement when she was charged at Westminster Magistrates’ Court this summer. This led to surreal scenes of police officers placing actual coconuts in sealed evidence bags. Similarly, academic Kehinde Andrews, who has also vocally supported Hussain in her legal battle, was visited by police earlier this month, after he called right-wing commentator Calvin Robinson a ‘house negro’.

Hussain’s acquittal is good news on the free-speech front. But others who have fallen foul of Britain’s thoughtpolice have not been so lucky. Think of YouTuber Count Dankula, who was convicted of a hate crime in 2018 for teaching his pug to do a Nazi salute. Or of Kate Scottow, a feminist convicted in 2020 of causing ‘needless anxiety’ via persistent ‘misgendering’ (thankfully, her conviction was later quashed). Gender-critical feminists and Christian preachers are regularly harassed by the police for offending woke sensibilities. Time and again, the authorities prove that they cannot be trusted to protect our liberties.

In a free society, everyone should have the right to hold and express views that others may find offensive or obnoxious. But this simple point of principle seems to have been lost not just on the police, but also on many of Hussain’s most vocal defenders. Indeed, self-styled ‘anti-racists’ may have rallied to her cause, but they have been stonily silent during every other censorship controversy of recent years. They seem to believe that ‘hate speech’ should be criminalised, but that their own variety of it should be exempted.

Terms like ‘coconut’, ‘house negro’ and ‘Uncle Tom’ are quite obviously racial slurs. They treat black and brown Brits who fail to toe the woke line as traitors to their race. They suggest that if ethnic-minority people are to be ‘authentic’ they must think and act a certain way. And yet Hussain’s supporters went to absurd lengths to pretend this wasn’t the case. They couldn’t defend Hussain on free-speech grounds, because they do not really believe in free speech. They just happen to agree with the particular flavour of bigotry she was expressing.

I’m glad Hussain was acquitted. Her unpleasant views should be opposed through more speech, not censorship. But let’s also call out her hypocritical defenders, who seem only able to defend the rights of people who share their toxic worldview.

Fraser Myers is deputy editor at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on X: @FraserMyers.