Main Edition
US
FR
August 5, 2024 - 7:00am
When the last Government enacted draconian restrictions on the right to assembly and protest on the pretext of limiting the spread of Covid-19, there were warnings about the precedent this could set. Namely, that basic civil rights could be put aside by politicians with little scrutiny or serious challenge.
Those concerns are beginning to seem prophetic. John Woodcock, ex-Labour MP and Government advisor on political violence, argued this weekend that reinstating Covid-like restrictions would be the right response to the violent disorder taking place around the country following the dreadful events in Southport last week. At the same time, Keir Starmer has signalled moves that include more Government control of online information and the expansion of state surveillance through facial recognition.
Civil rights groups such as Big Brother Watch have expressed concern about the implications of such proposals for civil rights. But there is an even more fundamental principle that has been under attack for some time which has received much less attention: those who make our laws should not decide which of those laws we are allowed to protest against.
Violence during public protests, especially against the police, is inexcusable, and the targeting by rioters of migrant hotels this weekend is deeply troubling. But the suggestion in some quarters that the main problem is violence from far-Right protestors is wide of the mark. In recent years, we have seen violent protests by extremists from across the political spectrum including groups linked to the far-Left, Islam, anti-racism, Just Stop Oil and the transgender movement.
Yet despite systematic aggression and violence from all these factions, the one group politicians have decided to ban is anti-abortion activists outside clinics. Such protests in the UK have been entirely peaceful, largely consisting of Christians praying quietly and offering non-judgemental support to pregnant women: no threats to the police and no violent disorder.
This “buffer zone” law sets a hugely significant precedent that should worry people of all political persuasions: MPs have taken it on themselves also to adjudicate which issues people have the right to protest against. Under the buffer zone law, for example, animal rights activists could protest against animal experimentation on drugs outside a clinic or hospital even if the protests caused upset to staff or patients. But if an elderly Christian lady decides to protest (or even pray) against abortion, at the same venue, MPs have decided she should be deemed to be committing a criminal offence. In contrast, protests by far-Right (or far-Left) extremists in Southport or elsewhere remain legal, as long as they do not veer into violence.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGenerally agree. Right to Protest must be protected, but there are limits.
The Just Stop Oil demonstrators who closed the M25 went beyond it and rightly acquired significant consequences. Yobs lobbing bricks, setting fire to Businesses and trying to invade hotels to attack the occupiers also crosses it. Do not try to hide the difference here behind some freedom to Protest irrefutable right.
Totally agree. One of the most effective protests in my lifetime was the truckers protest in Ottawa. Totally peaceful. Joyful even. It was effective because it was supported by millions. One you start vandalizing property, that support dissipates.
And still the Canadian Government & the MSM demonised them. The government then froze their bank accounts so they would lose their homes and worry about feeding their children. Trudeau’s government acted in an authoritarian way contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedom. He always has admired dictatorships
Right to Protest must be protected, but there are limits.
Which is fine – but not when the law is only applied to one section of the community. Hamas is proscribed in the UK, but how many of the many thousands of people who went onto the streets to violently celebrate its activities or those of BLM were prosecuted? We waited literally years for the police to do something about JSO disruption.
The difference, of course, is that the Hamas and JSO enthusiasts are the children of the middle class.
I may be wrong but I don’t recall any “violent celebrations” of Hamas’s activity.
I do recall peaceful demonstrations against the bombing of Gaza at which there were undoubtedly Hamas supporters but not the majority.
Indeed an “obviously Jewish” man was able to walk through one of the demonstrations with no problems, only to complain about the policeman who told him not to do so.
The BLM demonstrations were undoubtedly violent with destruction of property ie a statue.
And yes JSO was allowed far too much leeway probably for the reason you cite.
And before I am almost certainly accused of being pro Hamas, I most definitely am not; October 7th was an act of utter barbarity. Regrettably it produced from Netanyahu the no doubt intended response, instead of the precisely targeted retribution in which Israel once excelled
I may be wrong but I don’t recall any “violent celebrations” of Hamas’s activity.
Tell that to the policewoman disfigured by a bottle thrown at her or any of the others injured during a peaceful Hamas riot in May.
A Hamas riot? Where?
London. Where else?
In the US it is not “Hamas enthusiasts” who are “children of the middle class,” rather it is university students horrified at the genocide going on in Gaza and the absolute indifference of their own government to the situation which they could easily rectify, who are the children of the middle class. Fortunately, they are being joined by working class people also, and maybe the numbers will increase. Let me also add that the protests in the US, despite what the media continues to promote, are, by and large, nonviolent. And that many of us were disgusted when our House of Representative hauled in 3 university presidents and subjected them to an abominable inquisition. Why? Because they allowed such protests to occur on their campuses/because they didn’t subject protesting students to more severe punishment, e.g., expulsion. So, yes, I totally agree with you about the right to protest, and, yes violence to others should definitely be prohibited, but the limits beyond which protest shouldn’t be permitted is debatable and should be the same for all groups, with no preferential treatment for the groups we approve of.
Utter rubbish.
University presidents were called to HoR to answer for their abominable behaviour to tolerate antisemitism and harassment of Jewish students.
At least one resigned after completely unacceptable language.
As part of the process we found out how useless non academic with zero credibility gained her post.
Basically usual DEI hire: useless woman of colour.
Two resigned, and it was not their language that was unacceptable, in fact they barely had the opportunity to explain their reasoning in the face of bullying Stefanik and the other Republicans eager to score points on who could be the best apologist for Israel. What stood out most strongly was that they were not allowed to finish sentences, and the general intolerance for freedom of speech and the university’s role in fostering that. For Palestinian students to be able to invite speakers to address students on a university canvas, for students to carry posters that call for a ceasefire in Gaza, and freedom and self-determination for Palestinians is not antisemitic. It may be that Jewish students felt “unsafe,” but it had little to do with “harassment,” and more to do with an environment in which Israel’s behavior was being criticized. The only people that have been killed or severely injured in the US have been a little Palestinian boy who was stabbed to death, and a young Palestinian student who was paralyzed by his assailant’s attack.
Get your facts straight and stop maligning people of color about whom you know nothing.
I remember the massive BLM demonstrations during lockdown, when the fear of spreading Covid kept the rest of us masked and two metres apart. Crowds of BLM supporters in London ignoring all that as the police stood by, too scared to intervene.
Two tier policing is real, and Suella Braverman lost her job for pointing that out.
But we must remember it it not the frontline officers (the ones who get rocks thrown at them) that have decided to police in this way. It is weak, pliant senior police leadership kowtowing to woke institutions and politicians. Two tier policing is just one symptom of the 2 tier society that has been created by the “Social Justice” movement.
It is also a two tier criminal justice system.
Compare the sentences that are applied. Barely a slap on the wrist for the BLM mob (I have mind in particular that yob who tried to burn the flag at the Cenotaph), yet the counter protester who happened to urinate a few feet away from a plaque to a murdered police officer without any apparent intent got a jail sentence, and Sam Melia received 2 years for putting stickers on lampposts.
People are not stupid. They can see what is happening
It is exactly this selective treatment of different issues/groups that represents the biggest danger right now, and will make the difference between the unrest being sustainably quelled and it escalating. And it’s not just about treatment which differs in fact either – this is about perceptions too, which may or may not be grounded in fact.
Right now – probably like many others – I’m thinking: coming down hard on thugs who set fire to libraries, storm asylum accomodation etc? Yes, absolutely correct. BUT – where are the politicians saying they’re going to come down hard on the men who were harassing female politicians before the election? Not hearing much of that…
If that kind of double standard is seen to come to bear when the participants in these riots are dealt with, then things could get very unpleasant. At this point, I do not trust the Labour government to handle this in a way which doesn’t make it 20 times worse.
Absolutely. This sense of double standards is, I think, one of the main drivers of this unrest. Especially as there is no attempt to even disguise it any more. The contempt for the ordinary man is palpable.
What Starmer could do is what Macron did after one of the gilets jaunes meltdowns: organise meetings with the ordinary folk to let them articulate what’s bothering them and show them that politicians can listen. Some things will undoubtedly be said which offend the delicate ears of urban liberals and they can expect a lot of pent up anger to come out – but it could be the best thing to take the heat out of the current situation.
I’m willing to bet money that most people don’t want this violence and unrest but that if the political class carry on ignoring their legitimate concerns then it might seem like the only alternative.
Starmer has just undergone the 4/5 yearly torture of having to pretend to listen to ordinary (stupid and bigoted) people. I doubt he has washed the stench of them off enough to feel like doing it again.
This is the chance for Farage to show he really is the opposition, but he needs to come up with credible solutions and not just keep reiterating the problem.
But did Macron just pretend to listen to their concerns?
Did any actual policies implemented by Macron address their grievances?
I doubt it.
It is just usual window dressing by woke globalisers.
Would Unherd’s sub-editors please get a grip? There are no “Covid-style controls on protests”. Saying they “set”, in the unconditional present tense, any kind “precedent” implies the controls are already in place and the precedent has been set. This is not true. The article is written as a warning about the dangers of any such controls, mooted under the regime’s license by one of its public-facing minions to test the public’s reaction, being put in place. Exactly the same thing happened with a recent piece on military attacks allegedly ordered, but not yet carried out, by Iran.
Perhaps the implication that controls have been out in place drives clicks by concerned readers. Perhaps it’s just lazy sub-editing, saving precious space by omitting the crucial conditional modal verb, “would”. Maybe it’s just the decline in educational standards manifesting itself. It doesn’t really matter. But this is not pedantry. The accurate and truthful use of language is hugely important if an outlet is to build and maintain the trust of its readership, something which is aptly demonstrated by the deliberately misleading / lazy / uneducated usage and abuse of the term “far right” across the media spectrum.
Amen to that.
Thank you. I see that sense has now prevailed – Covid-style controls are indeed not the answer against disorder or anything else for that matter.
The UK just needs a person such as Woodcock and these recommendations to commence the slippery slope in to fascism.
Keir Starmer has signalled moves that include more Government control of online information and the expansion of state surveillance
Starmer is possibly the most frightening politician we’ve ever elected. His inaction as DPP over the grooming gangs, Savile and the rest of it, his authoritarian rejection of the Brexit vote, his conniving with the anti-semites in his party (until it became expedient not to) and prevarication over the rights of women clearly indicate that he believes, like his mentor Blair, that the law should be subordinate to ‘progressive’ political goals. The fact that his is not a genuinely legitimate government, having achieved power with no real mandate, won’t stop him.
Be very afraid.