More details have emerged about what Matilda's star Sam Kerr allegedly uttered to a police officer, which led to her racial harassment charge.
Police will allege the 30-year-old called an officer "a stupid white bastard" after cops were called to break up a dispute over a taxi fare in Twickenham last year, The Sun has revealed.
It has been claimed Kerr was sick while she was in the taxi after a night out with friends on January 30, 2023.
Kerr has been charged with intentionally causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress to the male PC under section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
She entered a plea of not guilty to the offence when she appeared via videolink in Kingston Crown Court in the United Kingdom on Monday.
Kerr, who sported a t-shirt and black jacket for her virtual court appearance, had only confirmed her name and plea of not guilty during the hearing.
Judge Judith Elaine Coello indicated Kerr's defence would be that she did not intend to cause alarm, harassment or distress to the police officer, and that her behaviour was not racially motivated, The Sun reported.
- Sky News Australia, 7th Mar 2024
Oh dear.
Discrimination cases generally, have a pretty high standard of proof which needs to be crossed over. Racial discrimination cases in particular, take that standard of proof and apply a very particular set of conditions over the top of it. Generally speaking, these kind of cases have two elements. Firstly there is the question of whether or not a reasonable person was likely to be offended. Secondly there is the question of what kind of material tort resulted from the alleged event of discrimination.
From what I can determine, as it specifically relates to this case, and from what little information which we've been told, this case will hinge upon what constitutes 'mere abuse' and whether or not The Man On The Clapham Omnibus is likely to be offended.
If the Metropolitan Police are to allege that Sam Kerr called the Police Constable a "stupid white bastard", then that will be a question of to what degree that a police officer can be offended and whether or not this constitutes racial discrimination.
If it is just the word "bastard" then the likelihood of a police officer being genuinely offended is small. If this was in Australia, then this would be a non-event. In fact there is quite a famous story when during the Bodyline Test Cricket series, Douglas Jardine complained to the Australian Test Captain Vic Richardson, who is reported to have opened the door to the dressing room accompanied with Jardine and asked the question:
"OK, which of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?"
I personally do not believe that "bastard" is the word that was used in this context, and that the media is using scare quotes to hide actual words used; which might have genuinely caused offence.
However it is the qualifiers which have been used at the beginning of this abusive epithet which is where this case might actual draw its venom from. "Stupid" might very well be just an intensive modifier and therefore not material to the case. The thing that really might what lies as the heart of the case, is Kerr's use of the word "White".
Is a White person materially likely to be offended if they were called "White"? Remember, the law not only has to be seen to meter out equal justice, it has to actually do so. If this had been someone racially abusing a black police officer, then the law can not act differently.
I can almost guarantee that the Metropolitan Police have the incident on a body camera affixed upon the person of the police officer in question. I can also almost guarantee that the Metropolitan Police would not have taken this to the Police Prosecution Service unless they thought that this was a watertight case. I am 98% sure that the police have Sam Kerr bang to right on this. There is likely absolutely no fault with the legal materiel of this case.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31
31 - Racially or religiously aggravated public order offences.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
(b) an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress)
- Section 31, Crime and Disorder Act 1998
And:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
4A - Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
- Section 4A, Public Order Act 1986
Was there an offence under Section 31?
Can the police demonstrate that there was intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress?
Because almost certainly, if video and audio exists of the incident, then Section 4A(1a) and (1b) are a simple matter of fact.
What I want to know is what the Metropolitan Police hope to achieve by bringing forth this case to court. If this involved a black player from the Premier League, would the Metropolitan Police still have brought the case to court? What kind of other political flavours are going on under the surface? Is the Police Constable in question a member of the National Front or the BNP? To what degree is this statutory revenge because this can be used as a highly publicised case? Remember, the 1980s and the 'sus laws' still linger on in people's memories.
This case has already gained political traction in right-wing media outlets like GB News, OAN, Fox News, and Sky News Australia. Likely it will also gain political traction across Europe as well. I imagine that there is quite a lot of dog whistling going on, as Britain sleepwalks to the right and as sections of the media quietly goose step towards cultural fascism. If that was the intent of the Police Constable in question and the underlying culture of the Metropolitan Police Service, then this is an open goal for them.
There is of course a tension which exists in progressive politics which simply does not exist on the authoritarian right. An inconsistency like this debases progressive politics because although we want to lecture society on how we have zero tolerance for racism, it is still hypocrisy to dismiss it and laugh it off jovially it it happens to occur against white people.
The manner in which people dismiss this out of hand, precisely because due to the fact the recipient of the alleged abuse was a white man reinforces the notion in young white men in particular, that they are the enemy of progressive politics. It does not help that among some sections of progressive politics white men are the designated enemy of progressive politics. This in turn, which drives an imagination of the victimisation of white men (despite all evidence to the contrary) actually does help to drive extremism.
If what I suspect is true and that the Metropolitan Police have a watertight case, then this is pretty open and shut. It still doesn't detract from the fact Kerr was trying to use someone's race as a slur. She was being racist.
You can't sugar coat it.
It was a racist slur.
Actions have consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment