UK

Why is legitimate criticism of MPs being conflated with violence?

LABOUR HUB

Feb. 23, 2023

“This is about politicians who backed one of the worst atrocities of the 21st century panicking about their moral culpability.”

Unless a transcript of the meeting is released, as John McDonnell MP has apparently  requested, we may never know exactly what took place in a meeting between the House of Commons Speaker and senior Labour figures. But the suggestion is that the Labour front bench persuaded Lindsay Hoyle to break with both long-standing convention and the official advice he had received from the Clerk of the House in order to take a vote on Labour’s strings-attached Gaza ceasefire motion on the grounds that MPs’ security might be threatened otherwise.

The result was that the Labour leadership successfully hijacked a Scottish National Party Opposition debate and prevented a vote on their unconditional ceasefire motion, which could have seen scores of Labour MPs’ votes cast in favour, in defiance of the whips, and caused major embarrassment to Keir Starmer. In fact, it was a strange kind of victory, as the vote took place in total confusion with Tory and SNP MPs having walked out. There is now talk of a new debate on the issue. Owen Jones provides an excellent discussion of the issues here.

One noxious side-effect of this melodrama is that the media debate has now shifted from the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, with nearly 30,000 dead and facing possible famine and a further Israeli military offensive on Rafah, from which the displaced population have literally nowhere to flee. Instead, the focus is now on whether our parliamentarians are safe from protesters.

Crossbench peer Lord Walney, commissioned by the government three years ago to look into violence against politicians, says MPs need protecting from “intimidation” that could influence how they vote.

Police should get extra powers to tackle protests outside Parliament and other democratic venues, including MPs’ offices and local councils, he says. Former Jeremy Corbyn strategist Andrew Fisher responded by calling this “dangerous stuff.”

Lord Walney, formerly John Woodcock, was shockingly ennobled four years ago by Boris Johnson. As Labour Hub reported at the time, “The former MP for Barrow and Furness lost the Labour whip in 2018 following allegations of sexual harassment.  He has been a keen supporter of Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen, which has been marked by appalling civilian casualties resulting from Saudi air strikes, and praised the repressive regime of Turkey’s President Erdogan as tolerant and progressive. In January 2019, Woodcock abstained in a parliamentary vote of no confidence against May’s government and in November called for a Conservative vote. His peerage looks like a pay-off from Johnson.”

Violence against MPs, or the threat of it, is a serious matter and requires police action. But this should not be conflated with peaceful protest, which has been the hallmark of the overwhelming majority of pro-ceasefire protests since the Israeli bombardment of Gaza began.

On Wednesday evening, thousands of peaceful protesters queued for hours in the rain to lobby their MPs. Yet they were denied entry by security to Westminster Hall to lobby MPs in the usual way, an issue that John McDonnell raised in Parliament itself.

Momentum spoke for many when it tweeted: “It is vital our elected representatives can fulfil their democratic mandates in safety. It is wrong to conflate this safety with insulation from democratic accountability.  And it is outrageous to conflate terrorism with democratic protest against UK complicity in genocide.”

Labour NEC member Jess Barnard agreed: “Threats or intimidation against MPs are obviously unacceptable. Being lobbied, challenged, held to account on your voting record or your comments are all part of democracy and are part of holding public office.”

Many MPs took the same line, Mick Whitley tweeting: “Threats and abuse are never acceptable. But we have to be careful not to conflate robust scrutiny and legitimate, lively protest with abuse – especially at a time when the #RightToProtest is under attack by this authoritarian Tory government.”

Hackney MP Diane Abbott agreed: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MP’s offices, town halls and Parliament is appalling. The first step towards a police state.”

In a detailed thread, Coventry MP Zarah Sultana said: “I find the debate about public engagement with MPs concerning. First, there’s an attempt being made to demonise the Palestine solidarity movement, portraying it as inherently violent and extreme. This attempt is laced with Islamophobic tropes.”

“Let’s remember the Palestine solidarity movement – demanding an immediate ceasefire and an end to the slaughter in Gaza – represents the majority opinion in Britain,” she added. “Rallying to this cause, hundreds of thousands of people have exercised their democratic right to protest.

“Those overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations are being depicted as a violent ‘mob’. That’s a very worrying undemocratic line of argument. This Islamophobic demonisation of the Palestine solidarity movement must be resisted, with the right to peaceful demonstration upheld.”

The MP warned against conflating violence with robust criticism, adding that “too often the professed concern with MP safety is partial and one-sided. Whenever I speak up for the rights of the Palestinian people, I am subjected to a barrage of racist abuse, threats and hate… Making this worse is that it’s stoked by politicians and pundits.”

Birmingham MP Jess Phillips agreed, tweeting: “Level of islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue) I vote out of analysis not fear.”

Responding to Lord Walney’s proposal to criminalise protest outside Parliament and MPs’ offices, a Momentum spokesperson said: “This would be an outrageous assault on basic democratic freedoms. It must be opposed.”

Given the almost uniformly peaceful demeanour of pro-ceasefire protesters so far, it’s unlikely this issue would be a media talking-point, were it not for the alleged raising of the issue of MPs’ security by the Labour leadership with Speaker Hoyle. But as Diane Abbott tweeted: “When MPs are under threat that is a matter for the police, not an excuse to block inconvenient debates.”

Owen Jones agreed: “This isn’t about MPs’ security. It’s about politicians who backed one of the worst atrocities of the 21st century panicking about their moral culpability. From the very start, it’s those who oppose slaughtering civilians demonised as the real dangerous extremists.”

It’s not the first time that Keir Starmer has resorted to authoritarian methods to get his way. It does not augur well if he thinks he can use the same controlling ruthlessness that he exercises over the Labour Party in relation to our parliamentary democracy – and that’s even before he gets into office!

Image:British Houses of Parliament. Source: The British Parliament and Big Ben, Author: Maurice from Zoetermeer, Netherlands, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.