When MPs fear for their safety because of how they vote, we can’t look away
Feeling strongly about a subject is no excuse to harass MPs – the status quo is intolerable, writes Eliot Wilson
Last week the Prime Minister invited police chiefs to 10 Downing Street to discuss the challenge of threats and intimidation of MPs influencing the democratic process. Rishi Sunak was not in a mood to disguise his feelings, describing a “growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule”.
He was clear that the public expected the government to protect “our democracy and our values that we all hold dear”. But he also turned the spotlight on the police themselves, saying protecting politicians against intimidation was essential to maintain public confidence in the forces of law and order.
“We simply cannot allow this pattern of increasingly violent and intimidatory behaviour which is, as far as anyone can see, intended to shout down free debate and stop elected representatives doing their job,” Sunak said.
He was talking about the large public demonstrations in support of Gaza in recent months, but he was also talking about events in the House of Commons the week before, when the speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, had said that his controversial decision-making on procedural issues had been influenced by concerns for
MPs’ safety.
The government has published a “defending democracy policing protocol” which identifies a “pattern” of increasingly intimidatory behaviour. Agreed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the College of Policing, it draws on funding of £31m to ensure appropriate policing of major events, the protection of elected representatives, proper threat assessments and better training for police officers.
Not everyone agrees with the prime minister. The Labour Party is believed to support the measures but has concerns over Sunak’s language, while Amnesty International has warned of the threat to freedom of expression and assembly, accusing him of “wildly” exaggerating the issue.
I am not so sure. The protest last month at the home of Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood by pro-Palestinian demonstrators crossed a line, and the self-righteous response of the organisers, that it was in response to the Israeli bombing of Rafah, will not do. Ellwood is a backbench MP, and the tragic loss of life cannot be invoked as a blanket justification for harassment because demonstrators feel he should call for a ceasefire.
Some also imply a misleading degree of passivity. Many of those demonstrating on behalf of the Palestinian people will say, sincerely, that they abhor Israeli military operations in Gaza. It is worth bearing in mind that the first March for Palestine took place in central London on 14 October 2023, two weeks before Israeli forces entered Gaza and only a week after Hamas’s atrocities.
We should welcome the fact that the government has not rushed to legislate. There have been at least 10 acts of Parliament dealing with crime or policing since 1997, and there is currently a Criminal Justice Bill before the House of Commons. The protocol published last week emphasises existing police powers, and it should always be the priority to make existing statute work before we seek to bring in new legislation.
Using existing procedures and powers properly is, in a way, a microcosm of this whole matter. Just as the police should exercise their authority in accordance with the law, so protestors and campaigners are obliged to work within the rules. Feeling strongly about a subject can never be an excuse to step beyond these limits.
It is easy for those who are surrounded by righteously angry crowds, however peaceful in intent, to say that their freedoms are being threatened and that politicians are exaggerating. But two MPs have been murdered by extremists in less than 10 years, more receive regular death threats and some have stepped down from parliament explicitly because of the danger. There are sitting MPs who wear stab vests to conduct public engagements.
When members of parliament say that they fear for their safety or their lives based on how they cast their votes in the House of Commons, we cannot simply look away. Threats come from all sides, of course. The conflict in Gaza has, however, injected an especially poisonous note into debate. If nothing else, it has to be a catalyst. The status quo is dangerous, it is damaging and it cannot be allowed to persist.
Eliot Wilson is co-founder of Pivot Point