They are the racial harassment allegations that have seen football fans across Australia, the UK, and around the world, lose their collective mind.

A London police officer alleges that the hugely popular Chelsea and Matildas striker Sam Kerr called him a “stupid white bastard” following a dispute over a taxi fare in Twickenham, south-west London, on January 30, 2023. She has been charged with intentionally causing racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress to the male officer under section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The matter is due to go to trial to February 2025, if it is not dismissed earlier as an abuse of process.

Sam KerrCredit: AP

Yet, while the huge reaction to the charges against Kerr is understandable, as they do contain a reference to race, it’s worth looking at how they actually stack up.

First, calling a white person a “stupid white bastard” is not the same as calling a black person a “stupid black bastard”. As the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre explains, racial prejudice may be directed towards white people (e.g. as in “white people can’t dance” or “all white people are racists”) but it is not racism because the comment is not ingrained with a systematic abuse of power. That is, expressions of racial prejudice against a white person may hurt that person’s feelings, and are not to be condoned, but they do not have the power to affect the white person’s social, economic or political privileges.

As Tim Wise has explained, “If [Indigenous people] say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all.”

Second, to prove the charge against Kerr, the police will have to show (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Kerr: intentionally caused the police officer harassment, alarm or distress; did this by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour; and this conduct was racially aggravated. That is, around the time of the offence, Kerr demonstrated hostility towards the police officer based on his membership of a racial group (ie being white).

One may seriously doubt whether Kerr intentionally caused the police officer harassment, alarm or distress and whether a police officer would usually feel harassed or distressed by such a comment. I suspect that many police officers would hear much worse on a daily basis.

The need to prove intention is also important. The relevant UK act contains a similar prohibition but without the need to prove intention. However, in that case, the police would have to prove that they warned Kerr to stop and she did not. In this instance, they do not allege any warning being given.