In Lithuania, 47-year-old Kamisha Menns has been charged with inciting “hatred against white people”. The penalty range is up to two years’ imprisonment. The background is that she was filmed mocking what she called “white women’s tears” following an argument over a ticket at a ski resort.
The case against Menns, who is originally from Jamaica, has attracted attention because it is something as rare as the defendant, rather than the complainant, being non-white. It raises questions as to whether European hate speech laws – which are intended to be race-neutral – are in reality applied asymmetrically.
Public mockery, degradation and incitement to hatred
The incident occurred in February 2025 at Liepkalnis Ski Park near Vilnius. Menns claims that she and her 11-year-old daughter were denied service and thereafter charged twice for the child’s lift pass. She filmed the confrontation with the female employee and, after the latter had been reduced to tears, Menns made mocking comments about “white women’s tears”. She further indicated that the tears were a means of presenting oneself as a victim and thereby manipulating the police who had been called to the scene.
Lithuanian prosecutors maintain that the statements constitute “public mockery, degradation and incitement to hatred” against persons “of white origin”. The indictment is based on Article 170 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the public dissemination of contempt or hatred against persons on the basis of race, skin colour, nationality, ethnicity and so forth.
The case has been covered, among other places, in Black Current News and has spread across social media.
– moves to Lithuania (a White country)
– spends her time complaining about White people
– gets charged with inciting racial hatred against White people
– is back online complaining about White people who decided to give her some consequences for inciting racial hatred against… pic.twitter.com/smoWQ2iZqf— Holly Grayle (@HollyGrayle) April 16, 2026
Menns herself describes the case as a reaction to perceived discrimination against her as a black mother and claims that her criticism of white people is legitimate and descriptive, not hateful.
– Grants minorities the right to hate the majority
Lithuania’s hate speech law is on paper “colour-blind”, neutral and in accordance with EU directives against racism and xenophobia. It is intended to protect against hatred based on race, skin colour, nationality/ethnic origin, religion/belief, sexual orientation, sex, age, disability and so forth.
Despite the colour-blind law, there is nevertheless a widespread perception that its application is tendentious; that it is primarily used against criticism of mass immigration, Islam and/or non-Western cultures. This is a pattern pointed out in several countries:
The United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway and others are full of examples of black or Muslim activists making strongly generalising anti-white statements without having to answer for them in the courts – while critics of “multiculturalism” are punished harshly.
Read also: Britain arrests 12,000 every year for offensive messages online
Our new “blasphemy laws” promote anti-white racism under the guise of “anti-racism”
The notion that it is acceptable to hate “upwards” against “white power structures” appears to have taken hold on the political Left. This is claimed to undermine the rule-of-law principle of equality before the law and to contribute to promoting anti-white racism under the guise of “anti-racism”.
Read also: Why does not everyone know the name Henry Nowak?
In practice, the hate speech provisions have become civilisation’s new “blasphemy laws”, in which those who are protected and those who are punished are not distributed fairly. They are used almost exclusively to discipline the historical white majority population.
When the mechanisms are reversed – as in the case of Menns in Lithuania – it attracts worldwide attention that the law is being applied at all, and that it can in fact operate “contrary to its intention”.
That Lithuania apparently seeks to apply the law objectively is in itself an anomaly. In most Western countries, a similar statement would have been filtered out by prosecutors long before it reached a courtroom.