I was surprised by the conduct of Cllr Shirley Brown who called a fellow Asian Conservative councillor a “coconut” at a heated Bristol City Council debate in 2009; but even more bemused at her conviction for racial harassment.
The Lib Dem councillor, who has given years of service championing the cause for equality and diversity undid all of her valuable work in a few seconds when she called Cllr Jay Jethwa a “coconut.”
What surprised me on watching the excerpt of her un-finest hour on the early evening news was how she phrased her words. She said “In our community we have a name for people like you and that word is coconut.”
Using the term “we” creates the impression that Cllr Brown was not merely expressing a personal opinion, but speaking on behalf of others who have mandated her. As a councillor she represents the communities she serves, but she has clearly got her personal views and professional role confused here.
Whilst Cllr Brown disagreed with proposed cuts to the Legacy Commission set up to educate people about the wrongs of slavery and her frustration and disappointment is understandable; her reaction was totally unprofessional and will not endear anyone to the cause, but more likely throw the whole project into disrepute.
The term “coconut” is the kind of name-calling one used to hear in the school playgrounds in the seventies when I was growing up, when racism was more overt and when social identities were often formed within black communities around shared experiences of racism, discrimination and social exclusion.
Quite why Cllr Brown used the term is more baffling, given that it is an intra-ethnic term – one that is used within and among people of the same ethnic background. The term “coconut” (the more often it is said, the sillier it sounds) quite obviously cannot apply to Cllr Jethra, since she is of Asian descent. Cllr Jethra does not belong to the same ethnic group as Cllr Brown, so the term has been used out of its original context.
In any case, in my opinion an apology and rap on the knuckles should have been the end of the matter. To prosecute Cllr Brown for “racial harassment” is heavy-handed and as stupid as the silly slur.
The case should have been thrown out of court. How can one statement made on one occasion in the heat of the moment constitute “racial harassment?” Harassment is persistent, continued and threatening – none of which by any stretch of the imagination can be applied to Cllr Brown’s misguided outburst.
When Prince Harry called a colleague a “Paki friend” did he face prosecution? When Carol Thatcher called French African tennis star Jo-Wilfred Tsonga a “golliwog frog” and “half-golliwog” did she face prosecution?
When the Strictly Come Dancing star Anton Du Beke told Lailia Rouass that she “looked like a Paki” did he face prosecution?
The answer in all three cases is no. Whilst each incident understandably prompted outrage and received lots of media coverage, the aggressors were censured or sacked as they deserved to be – but none of them were prosecuted for racial harassment.
This is why as silly and unacceptable as Cllr Brown’s outburst was; her prosecution is even more ridiculous.
[insert-html-here 2]
