Coconuts vs golliwogs vs bananas vs oreos.

[Gob]

Councillor Shirley Brown has been at the heart of Bristol's multi-cultural community for 15 years, but in February 2009 she found herself at the centre of an unintended controversy.

While taking part in a debate in the city council she called a female Asian councillor, Jay Jethwa, a "coconut". The word is used to describe someone who is brown on the outside, but "white" on the inside. In other words, someone who is said to have disregarded their cultural roots.

Brown used the word in a debate about the funding of black and ethnic groups in the city, and was upset that Ms Jethwa was advocating cuts. The whole incident was filmed and can be viewed on YouTube (see internet links, right).

Speaking before the trial, Brown explained why she used the word. "I must admit, I was angry because I thought it was an absolute insult, because she is of Asian background. I was thinking how could you cut funding that is going to impact so many people. So the first thing that came to mind, instead of saying 'you idiot', I said 'you coconut'."

Although she apologised a few days after the comment, and on several occasions, the matter went to a local and then a national standards hearing.

Brown was reprimanded, briefly suspended from the council and then reinstated. But months later the case escalated when she was charged under the Public Order Act with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress".

It's a serious charge which comes with the threat of a criminal record.

But why, given Brown's numerous apologies, was it necessary to turn this into a criminal prosecution?

In a statement released before Brown's trial, the Crown Prosecution Service defended its approach as being "in the public interest... because it alleged an offence where the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on discrimination against the victim's ethnic origin".

On Monday Brown was convicted, given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs.

The judgement is an important development in what might be called "speech crime".

But what can and can't people say?

The case re-opens the debate on political correctness and freedom of speech which last flared up so publicly when TV presenter Carol Thatcher used the word "golliwog" in the green room of the BBC One programme The One Show.

Ms Thatcher was dismissed from the programme, but not prosecuted for the use of the word.

So while "coconut" can be a speech crime, is "golliwog" more acceptable in the eyes of the law?

Although there are clear differences between the two incidents, Brown's case seems to establish that anyone directing the word "coconut" at a black or Asian person, is liable to be prosecuted, in spite of any subsequent apology.

Had the impulsive councillor said something along the lines of "you have disregarded your cultural roots", she would almost certainly not have been prosecuted. It was the use of the word "coconut" to convey that sense, which resulted in her facing trial.

And coconut is not the only word used to signify that a person has disregarded their cultural roots.

Others include "Oreo", the biscuit which is black on the outside and white on the middle, and "banana" which has been used in the Chinese community to signify "yellow on the outside, white on the inside".

Such words are now hugely charged and it would be difficult for the Crown Prosecution Service to fail to prosecute in cases where they are used against an individual from the racial or cultural group concerned.

Courts trying such cases however face considerable difficulties.

The words and the level of "threat, abuse or insult" which they convey is very subjective. Some people regard the word "coconut" as highly derogatory. It can be seen as going to the very heart of a person's cultural identity and amount to an accusation of betrayal.

Bristol's multi-cultural community were clearly hurt and concerned by the comment from an elected councillor.

To one prominent member of that community, at least, coconut has only one legitimate meaning.

"It's not acceptable, unless you're talking about a fruit on a palm tree," says Amarjit Singh, who manages as Asian day centre in a suburb of the city. "Otherwise it is a racist comment. They should know better, they're the policy makers. They're the ones that promote community cohesion."

However, others take the view that the word is only mildly abusive. Whilst some do not find it threatening or abusive at all. The way in which it is said, the context and reaction of the person at whom it is directed will all be important factors in considering a prosecution.

But in the age of speech crime, a prosecution for the use of the word can now never be discounted


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8771721.stm

[loCAtek]

Yikes! I call myself that all the time, and in the states 'oreo' isn't so offensive, you'd sack someone for it!

[Sue U]

Gob, you may think us Yanks extremists in defense of free speech, but is this really what you would rather have as the alternative?

I can't imagine living in a society where you can be ciminally proscuted simply for a rude or intemperate comment.

[Lord Jim]

I can't imagine living in a society where you can be ciminally proscuted simply for a rude or intemperate comment.

I agree 100% with Sue on this one...

Talk about a "chilling effect" on speech....

This was a case of a citizen making a boneheaded remark to an elected official....

Good lord, if we started criminally prosecuting everyone in this country who did that, the courts would have little time to deal with anything else....

It's almost as common place as elected officials making boneheaded remarks to citizens....

[Gob]

Gob, you may think us Yanks extremists in defense of free speech, but is this really what you would rather have as the alternative?

I can't imagine living in a society where you can be ciminally proscuted simply for a rude or intemperate comment.

Neither would I Sue and Jim.

However, there must be a "middle ground" between this sort of "PC" madness, and allowing Phelps and co to have their evil say?

[Lord Jim]

However, there must be a "middle ground" between this sort of "PC" madness, and allowing Phelps and co to have their evil say?

I quite agree...

Though between those, two even a "middle ground" is not required....

One could tip very far in the direction of free speech and still not allow the vulgar cemetery antics of The Westboro Baptist "Church"...

[Gob]

I'd have little problem with that.

[Jarlaxle]

Gob, you may think us Yanks extremists in defense of free speech, but is this really what you would rather have as the alternative?

I can't imagine living in a society where you can be ciminally proscuted simply for a rude or intemperate comment.

Neither would I Sue and Jim.

However, there must be a "middle ground" between this sort of "PC" madness, and allowing Phelps and co to have their evil say?

No. There can be no middle ground. There is free speech or there is none. There is no room for compromise.

Congratulations...you live in a police state.

[Sue U]

No. There can be no middle ground. There is free speech or there is none. There is no room for compromise.

What he said.

[Gob]

Then that is where your hang ups over the issue over ride common sense.

[Sue U]

No. Common sense says that to have free speech there must be no restriction imposed on the content of that speech. Anything less is to invite tyranny, fueled by the wholly subjective sensitives of the readily outraged. Can free speech be abused? Of course. But that is a matter of etiquette, not law.

ETA:

Free speech can be abused in either (or both) content and context. While content is virually always a matter of manners alone, context can be acceptably controlled by time, place and manner restrictions justified by necessities other than the message being conveyed: e.g., you can justifiably prohibit a rock concert in a hospital zone, but not because the performers are intent on protesting the hospital's abortion policies.

[Lord Jim]

Jarlaxle wrote:No. There can be no middle ground. There is free speech or there is none. There is no room for compromise.



What he said.

I'm so glad you said that Sue...

It was really disturbing for me to find myself in 100% agreement with you....

Then that is where your hang ups over the issue over ride common sense.

What he said....

[Sue U]

See my ETA above.

[Gob]

No. Common sense says that to have free speech there must be no restriction imposed on the content of that speech. Anything less is to invite tyranny, fueled by the wholly subjective sensitives of the readily outraged. Can free speech be abused? Of course. But that is a matter of etiquette, not law.

Utter hogwash.

"Free speech" does not include the right to insult/defame/injure/attack/libel without consequence. So it is already controlled, without us lapsing into "tyranny".

you can justifiably prohibit a rock concert in a hospital zone, but not because the performers are intent on protesting the hospital's abortion policies.

Why not? If that performance would trample on the rights of others to have abortions unhindered or attacked/assaulted by music?

[dales]

......and all the way around back to Westboro Baptist?

I feel ill.

[Lord Jim]

Free speech can be abused in either (or both) content and context.

And having a bunch of inbred (and "inbred" is not just an insult in this case...it's a biological fact...look it up...of the slightly over 200 members of this "church" 90% of them are related to each other) sociopathic ying yangs screaming "GOD HATES YOUR SON AND HE'S GOING TO HELL" while you are trying to bury and say a last farewell to your child, who gave his life for his country, should certainly fall into that category....

The right to free speech, (especially in the "free assembly" sense of the term) can be legally limited in many ways (if you're going to have a demonstration on public property, you need a permit...etc.; if you feel you have been unfairly denied a permit, you can go to court and contest it....

(Digression: I have always felt that the initial decisions denying the Neo- Nazis a permit to march down the street in front of the homes of numerous Holocaust survivors in Skokie Illinois was absolutely correct...the right to "free assembly" doesn't grant you the right to "freely assemble" any place you damn well choose, any damn time you choose....if it did, people would be allowed to camp out in The Rose Garden...if you decide to "freely assemble" in the middle of the Bay Bridge at the height of rush hour, prepare to be arrested.)

[Gob]

Free speech should also include the right to reply...


With baseball bats...

[Lord Jim]

Free speech should also include the right to reply...

With baseball bats...

Like I said about my view on A Constitutional amendment prohibiting "flag burning"....

While I consider such a law to be unworkable....

If some hygiene challenged vulgar exhibitionist should happen to get his ass kicked while engaging in that behavior...

I'd make a really bad witness for his defense....

Ya know, my eye sight just ain't what it used to be....

And I suspect I may have been looking in another direction when that (allegedly) may have been happening..

If somebody were to kick "reverend" Phelp's ass in this situation, I think I might find that I was suffering from a similar level of "early on-set Alzheimers"...

[Andrew D]

Even more appropriately, it seems to me, the presence of the Westboro Baptist Scum would be a perfect occasion for a groundskeeper to pass by driving a large machine and -- purely by an unfortunate accident -- spray them all down with a powerful pesticide.

[Sue U]

"Free speech" does not include the right to insult/defame/injure/attack/libel without consequence. So it is already controlled, without us lapsing into "tyranny".

You miss the point entirely. Defamation/libel are civil wrongs against an individual and there is a civil mechanism in place to address any injury actually caused to that individual. The bedrock concept of free speech is that the government may not take sides so as to suppress any particular opinion, expression or point of view, no matter how offensive it my seem to the delicate sensibilities of others. Otherwise, the inevitable consequence is the idiocy demonstrated in the OP, where the machinery of the state is employed to punish people for publicly expressing unpopular opinions.

you can justifiably prohibit a rock concert in a hospital zone, but not because the performers are intent on protesting the hospital's abortion policies.

Why not? If that performance would trample on the rights of others to have abortions unhindered or attacked/assaulted by music?

Again, you miss the point. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions -- but not content restrictions -- can be imposed where circumstances necessitate them. You can protest and counter-protest all you want on a public sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, but you cannot block others' access to that clinic. By the same token, the government may not impose restrictions on such protests beyond those that are absolutely necessary to maintain access and orderly flow of traffic; i.e., the government cannot prohibit you from calling staff and clientele "baby-killers."

The right to free speech, (especially in the "free assembly" sense of the term) can be legally limited in many ways (if you're going to have a demonstration on public property, you need a permit...etc.; if you feel you have been unfairly denied a permit, you can go to court and contest it....

Which is exactly my point. The state may impose legitimate time, place and manner restrictions on public expression, but may NOT regulate the CONTENT of that expression. (How many times do I have to say this???) This is precisely why public spaces traditionally used for public expression (streets, parks, plazas, squares, village greens, etc.) must be open to all for such use, regardless of whether they are Nazis or Girl Scouts. Regulating content to suppress a particular point of view is, quite simply, tyranny.

Free speech should also include the right to reply...

Who said it doesn't? If you violate no other law (and I'm pretty sure assault with a baseball bat is still considered a violation in most jurisdictions) you are equally free to offer counter-expressions.

Again, the question is simply NOT about what individual citizens can do, it is about what the government may do in regulating the citizenry.