Is 'Coconut' a Racist Expression? Let's Crack On, Shall We?

Marieha Hussain: The Controversial ‘Coconut’ Placard Case

Fact:

When a person of colour behaves in a way perceived to be associated with white people, they could be called a 'coconut' by non-white individuals, because the flesh of a caucasian person and a coconut are both called white. Is this racism? 

The Case:

Around the time of the Palestine marches in 2023 - 2024, Marieha Hussain, a teacher, faced legal action for holding a placard up showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts. Regardless of any humour which she insisted it was, the racial context was flagged as pejorative or derogatory. Although Hussain was acquitted, she lost her career and faced online abuse, but still defended the placard as satire throughout. It can appear petty to be put on trial over a placard, but is it always so? Marieha Hussain's protest board does pale in comparison to modern celebrity acts of racism. 

The Placard

It was unfortunate that the Hussain family faced such harsh treatment. However, despite the racial nature of her legal proceedings, Hussain spoke to the press and accused the system of misusing hate speech laws against ethnic minorities: 

'The laws on hate speech must protect us, but this trial shows they are weaponised to target ethnic minorities'. 

Naturally, the uncivilised treatment she endured would have warranted her to bite-back, so to speak. Taking things objectively, one trial—of which she was acquitted—is not proof of an entire systemic persecution of the ethnic population. 

What if this was a Keir Starmer Cornish pasty placard (brown on the inside) during an alternative version of the summer protests? Would it have led to fewer legal outcomes? More? 

The Reality

An insightful blog here shows terms like 'coconut' and 'Oreo' are not new. They mean brown on the outside, 'white on the inside' and they are hurled at black or brown people who don’t conform to their racial stereotype. If Marieha Hussain fully understood the term before creating the placard, it wouldn't have been a surprise. Consider the archetypal activist; bold, purpose driven, passionate and focused on improving things. In certain circumstances, 'coconut' metaphors are not considered racist. Caution is advised with social sensitivities, and so, would more leniency with racial offences help? Especially after years of high profile racism? Are the less scrupulous more likely gamble with low level racial offences? 

Race Politics

Think back to the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK, when Sasha Johnson openly criticized whiteness as perpetuating systemic racism. She promoted Blackness with the intensity of a supremacist. Once, while on camera this BLM matriarch bullied a black man, calling him a 'coon,' with no legal consequence. It is a similar slur implying conformity to racist stereotypes. It’s reasonable to suggest that a non-Black individual would could very easily be prosecuted for the same act. The same laws are needed for everyone because racism is not housed in certain quadrants of the country. 

Holding a candle to our inherent racial differences will eventually lead to stereotyping, strengthening our racial biases. Race-baiters' may present their ideology as a political agenda or choose to defend one specific culture over another. Professor Andrews is an expert in black studies, and he spoke in defence of the placard, stating:

'Who says it’s racialised? These terms, coconut, come from struggle, from others... you can’t tell me I should be proud to have a brown prime minister and a brown home secretary and then say, well, actually, when they do things which are racist, we can’t criticise them. This is political language, and the judge made it clear this is political satire!'

Racially charged insults like 'coconut,' 'monkey,' or 'elephant washer' clearly follow old generalisations. Whereas surprisingly, many anti-immigration concerns do lack the same overt racial overtones, yet they are often fiercely condemned as such! Judge for yourselves, but if Prof. Andrews' argument concerning the Placard is that Sunak and Braverman’s 'whiteness' is inherently racist, he is undeniably reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and demonising white people—which is racism. 

In an ideal world, we would all practice forgiveness and champion care before speaking. In reality, we need rules to live by.

Final Thoughts

The trial raises important questions about whether such debates are ultimately more harmful or helpful. Human diversity—cultural, physical, historical, linguistic, and genetic—demands respect for each individual. However, this respect often runs dry.

Excessively labeling every slight as 'racist' can exacerbate modern racial hostility rather than build better bonds. As we venture these grounds, it’s crucial to strike a balance that acknowledges and respects our wonderful differences without failing standards of decency and good faith.

Coconut - Marieha Hussain - Racism - Protest - Politics - Coconut Placard - Ethnic Minorities - Court Case - Hussain

Questioning if Lucy Letby Had a Fair Trial

Letby: Why I Think She Might Be Innocent

Everyone Saw The News Reports 

Disclaimer: this post covers unpleasant themes, discretion is advised. 

6 to 7 min read

The nation was gripped right from the first news report. It was a case that got under everyone's skin - familiar TV reporters telling us about the rising death toll among babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital. The wider media speculated: were these deaths negligence? Criminal? Incompetence?

The knock-on effect for police was tremendous public expectation to catch someone. Coverage began in 2017 and created those intense 'turn the telly up' moments - we all needed to find out if they'd uncovered the monster responsible! Was this feeding the masses a premature conclusion? 

How Quickly The Focus Turned to Lucy Letby

And of course, it was quite speedy how the focus landed on Lucy Letby. People were saying the young nurse was present during those infant deaths. I was convinced like many others! The reports said she was directly there when the tragedies happened. Our news is trusted by everyone I know - it must be right? Yeah? 

But looking back, I think we let that 'Angel of Death' archetype take shape too easily. She became the dark shadow of that hospital ward. We stoked our own fires - did your circle of friends talk about bringing back the death sentence? Mine did. Social media painted her with a 'psycho vibe' and all of it contributed to presuming guilt before her trial started. That's a terrible climate for any investigation, let alone legal proceedings.

The Numbers Don't Add Up For Me

The prosecution's case relied heavily on statistical evidence linking deaths to when Letby was on duty. The correlations are noticeable, I'll give them that. But here's what bothers me: six deaths happened when Letby wasn't even there. 

The Guardian wrote that Dr John Gibbs emailed colleagues in 2016 saying the increase in deaths "might be within 'expected' statistical variance (but I'm not sure because my stats isn't good enough)." Numbers don't prove how someone died or who killed them. They just don't.

Medical Experts Argued Over Evidence Validity 

The expert witnesses spent time analyzing how infants died - mostly air embolisms and insulin overdoses, suggesting deliberate harm. Dr Evans, an ex-consultant paediatrician, claimed babies had air injected through nasal feeding tubes. 

But other clinicians questioned his reasoning, saying the methods weren't practically feasible. It does seem fiddly and awkward. When NHS professionals say the likely consequence would just be wind, it raises doubt. Think about it - reporters don't write articles by balancing scrabble pieces in a bath, do they? They use practical methods. Murderers would too.

Professor Jones, one of Europe's leading experts, told the court that tests for insulin poisoning needed better validation for solid evidence. His testimony was essentially rejected, which must have made NHS workers uneasy about their own jobs.

Those Handwritten Notes

The prosecution thought they'd struck gold with Letby's handwritten notes - troubling references that could paint her as a clinical killer. Many people were swayed by these scribblings, literally interpreting them as admissions of guilt. 

Her legal team said the notes were emotional expressions from someone in a distressing job. Nursing isn't easy. As a student nurse years ago, I was reprimanded for my notepad - it was full of unsavory handwritten reflections I'd accidentally left at the cook's station. It was taken as an insult. Can't any nurse do the same? Letby's notes might have been completely innocent.

No One Found Her Crazy

No psychiatric evaluation found any sinister diagnosis or psychopathology you'd expect from someone capable of systematic murder. She was cleared. Of course she'd experience emotional distress during the trials media circus. She had no apparent motive.

She showed no psychological disorders either. These are serious personality conditions that would typically be present in someone committing such crimes.

Systemic and Institutional Factors:

The Hospital Was A Mess

All my life, every news outlet has said the NHS is struggling. It's been underfunded for decades. The Countess of Chester Hospital had equipment problems, was understaffed, with high volumes of infants needing care. The demand was excessive.

Think about it - would an overworked, tired nurse even have time to carry out elaborate killings in a busy ward? By 2024, the hospital itself was investigated for manslaughter. After media attention, they increased staff, decreased admissions, improved equipment - and mortality rates improved.

Compromising Factors

Sensationalism and public scrutiny pressurised the direction of the investigation. We all wanted our witch to stand trial for what we perceived to be the worst of all crimes, but in reality, it may been caused by something else. It was the hospital vs the witch. Solid evidence was rejected in court, played down under the weight of personal notes and speculation. Is that good enough? 

Would those death rates have been different if Letby's team had worked in a well-funded private hospital? Have we forgotten how dangerous failing hospital wards can be?

The Pressure Got To Everyone

Sensationalism and public scrutiny pressured the investigation's direction. We all wanted someone to blame for what seemed like the worst possible crimes. But maybe it was caused by something else entirely. It became the hospital versus the witch hunt.

Solid medical evidence was downplayed under the weight of personal notes and speculation. Is that really good enough for a life sentence?

Smart People Are Worried

Professor Philip Dawid of Cambridge, along with twenty-four other experts, wrote to Health and Justice secretaries about poor evidence use in this trial. They requested the hospital inquiry be postponed for better evidence processing. That's not conspiracy theorists - that's serious professionals raising serious concerns.

Why I Think She Might Be Innocent

I'll be honest - I lean toward thinking Lucy Letby might be innocent. Here's why:

The statistical evidence doesn't account for the hospital's systemic problems. The medical evidence faced significant challenges from qualified experts that weren't properly addressed. The hospital's own failures provide a simpler explanation for increased deaths. She showed no psychological signs of someone capable of serial murder. 

Most importantly, when qualified professionals question evidence standards in such a serious case, we should listen.

I Could Be Wrong

A jury heard all the evidence and found her guilty. They might have been convinced by testimony I haven't fully considered. The families of those babies deserve justice, and if Letby is guilty, she should face consequences.

But the stakes are too high to get this wrong. A woman's life, grieving families' closure, public trust in our justice system - it all depends on getting this right.

What I Think Should Happen

Has Lucy Letby's case been sufficiently scrutinized? I don't think so. When this many medical and legal experts raise concerns about evidence quality its a strong indicator. When the hospital itself faces manslaughter charges its a clear sign. When three ex-bosses are arrested for investigations into infant death that really is a smoking gun. We are looking at systemic failure directly. It points to a realistic explanation rather than a monstrous infant murderer - we need to investigate properly and be realistic. What's more common a nurse who kills babies or an incapable NHS system? 

If there's reasonable doubt, it needs addressing. My son waited numerous hours for a mere blood test, do we honestly believe the NHS does not fail to provide care? Those babies' deaths demand justice, but real justice means being certain we've got the right explanation for what happened. 

I'm not screaming injustice or demanding her release. I'm asking for the thorough investigation this case deserves - one that properly weighs institutional failures against individual responsibility, that takes expert concerns seriously, and that ensures our justice system's integrity.

Because if we got this wrong, it's not just Lucy Letby who suffers - it's every family who trusted that hospital, every NHS worker doing their best in impossible conditions, and our faith in justice itself.

Lucy Letby Trial * Was it Thorough? * Is She Really Guilty?