A teacher accused of carrying a racially offensive placard at a pro-Palestinian protest has been acquitted after a court ruled that her actions were political satire and not an expression of racial hatred. Marieha Hussain, 37, from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, was cleared of the racially aggravated public order charge at Westminster Magistrates' Court following a two-day trial.

Ms Hussain was charged after she participated in a protest in November 2023, carrying a placard depicting Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman as coconuts. The image showed their faces superimposed on coconuts under a palm tree. On the reverse side, Ms Braverman was depicted as "Cruella Braverman," referencing the Disney villain.

Prosecutor Jonathan Bryan argued that "coconut" is a well-known racial slur aimed at people of colour who are perceived as betraying their racial identity by acting in a manner that aligns with white culture or politics. He suggested that the placard crossed the line from legitimate political expression to a racially offensive insult. "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," Mr Bryan told the court.

However, Ms Hussain’s defence, led by Rajiv Menon KC, argued that the placard was intended as satirical political criticism and not as a racist attack. Mr Menon highlighted that the charge was an attack on freedom of expression, especially given the satirical nature of the protest art. "The decision to prosecute Ms Hussain is disturbing when others, such as Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage, and Tommy Robinson, are free to make far more inflammatory and divisive statements," he said, adding that Ms Hussain was of "impeccable character."

Ms Hussain herself expressed astonishment that her placard could be interpreted as hate speech. "I find it astonishing it could be conceived as a message of hate," she said in a statement read to the court.

In her ruling, District Judge Vanessa Lloyd agreed with the defence, describing the placard as "part of the genre of political satire." She stated, "The prosecution has not proved to the criminal standard that it was abusive." The judge further ruled that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that Ms Hussain was aware her placard might be interpreted as abusive.

The ruling has been seen as a defence of free speech and political satire in the UK, even in sensitive political contexts such as those involving race and identity.

‍