Report comment

I think anonymous 16.48 means that she usually gets away with saying appalling things about people by arguing freedom of speech. And unfortunately very often her toxic opinions are indeed directed towards people who are muslim. So, anonymous 16.48 makes a fair point. That is how it looks. But it is not in truth a reflection of any double standard or discrimination in the legal system or amongst people generally. It is not the case that desecration of a war memorial causes more offence than calling refugees cockroaches. It is not about being white or non-muslim that has led to Jack Monroe's success against her. It is just that she was actually in a position to do it. I detest Katie Hopkins and find all she says repugnant. I've never met anyone who doesn't. It is however sadly a fact that the muslim people this heinous woman often abuses are either dead or too busy trying to stay alive to even know she exists or read the rag she writes in, let alone have the time or inclination to sue her in British courts - even if they had jurisdiction here and even if someone paid for it for them. There are practical reasons she has evaded this so far. If there was a way of suing her for just causing offence generally, I'm sure the crowd-funding would be under way in no time.