Importance Score: 78 / 100 🔴
Crackdown on Dissent: Echoes of Authoritarianism in Protest Policing
Despite different appearances, a concerning trend of authoritarianism is emerging in the approach to protest and dissent. While the current UK government’s style may differ from more overtly authoritarian regimes, its policies regarding demonstrations and opposition bear a striking resemblance. This similarity stems, in part, from the global influence of affluent and influential groups, oftenChannelled through right-leaning think tanks, advocating for stricter controls on publicAssembly and protest.
Arrest of Student Journalists Raises Concerns
Last week, an incident at a Quaker meeting house in Westminster highlighted these worrying trends. Six young women, engaged in a routine meeting of the protest group Youth Demand, were arrested by twenty police officers. The charges: conspiracy. However, the reality was far from a terror plot. The group, known for its activism on issues like climate breakdown and the Gaza conflict, was simply holding a pre-arranged discussion.
Journalist Detained: Freedom of Press Questioned
Among those arrested was Jennifer Kennedy, a student journalist covering the Youth Demand meeting. Kennedy, who identifies herself not as an activist but as a reporter, experienced firsthand the heavy-handed tactics employed. Her journalistic equipment—phone, camera, and laptop—was seized. Furthermore, she was held without communication for sixteen hours, a tactic typically reserved for serious crimes like organised crime, terrorism, or espionage. During her detention, police also searched her residence, unsettling her flatmate in the process.
Disproportionate Response to Protest Activities
Police justified the raid by alleging Youth Demand’s plans to “shut down London.” However, past actions from the group described as “shutdowns” have involved brief, ten-minute blockades of roads – actions consistent with previous demonstrations. The scale of the police response appears disproportionate to the actual threat posed by these protest activities.
Resource Allocation: Protests vs. Serious Crime
Law enforcement agencies frequently cite understaffing and funding constraints. Yet, significant resources are deployed to counter relatively minor protests. A previous climate camp, for example, saw over 1,000 officers from numerous forces mobilised at a cost of £3 million, resulting in only 24 arrests based on potential plans to block a road near a power station. Simultaneously, genuine organised crime often goes unaddressed due to claimed resource limitations, raising questions about priorities.
Redefining Protest: From Civil Disobedience to Extremism
Governments, police forces, and media outlets have increasingly blurred the lines between peaceful protest and extremism or terrorism. Traditional protest methods, like road blockages, are now portrayed as threats to societal order, despite their historical role in social change.
Double Standards in Law Enforcement: Farmers vs. Climate Activists
While laws restricting protest tactics are justified as necessary to prevent disruption, inconsistencies in their application are evident. Claims of ambulances being blocked by groups like Insulate Britain have lacked concrete evidence. Conversely, when farmers used tractors to block roads in central London during a protest, causing significant disruption and even affecting the Prime Minister’s movements, the response was notably different. Police and media showed minimal interest in arrests or criticism, highlighting a double standard in how different types of protests are treated.
Differential Treatment: Far-Right Organising vs. Environmental Protests
Similarly, there appears to be a reluctance to address far-right organising with the same level of scrutiny. The risk of public disorder from far-right groups has been downplayed, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, potentially contributing to inadequate preparedness for events like racist riots. This disparity raises questions about bias and priorities in law enforcement.
The Role of Lobbying and Think Tanks in Shaping Protest Laws
These apparent double standards are not accidental. Lobbying by powerful corporations and wealthy individuals seeking to suppress challenges to their interests plays a significant role. In the US, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 exemplifies this effort. Alarmingly, figures involved in shaping UK counter-extremism policy have links to similar organisations. The commissioner for countering extremism in the UK, for example, previously worked at the Heritage Foundation.
Corporate Influence on Protest Legislation
Recent restrictive laws, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act, were partly drafted with input from Policy Exchange, a corporate think tank funded by fossil fuel companies, among others. The outgoing independent adviser on political violence, with prior financial ties to lobby groups representing weapons and fossil fuel industries, even advocated for “protective buffer zones” around “defence companies and energy providers,” further illustrating corporate influence on protest regulations.
Demonising Dissent: Gaza Protests and the Erosion of Civil Liberties
Think tanks and allied media outlets have actively demonised protests against the Gaza conflict, linking them to terrorism and antisemitism, and labelling them “hate marches.” Despite these characterizations, reports from law enforcement indicate that these demonstrations have been overwhelmingly peaceful. A former chief constable acknowledged the largely peaceful nature of these large-scale protests. However, factual evidence seems to be disregarded when public opinion is manipulated through demonisation.
Labour Party’s Stance: A Departure from Protest Roots
The Labour party, traditionally rooted in the protest movement, is now adopting a more жесткий stance on dissent. Recent announcements of new measures empowering police to prevent or redirect protests based on their “effect” of intimidation near places of worship are concerning. This focus on “effect” rather than “intent” expands police powers significantly. Given the proximity of places of worship in urban areas, these measures could severely curtail the right to protest across the UK, particularly in areas the government deems sensitive. This contrasts sharply with the apparent tolerance shown towards police actions that themselves could be seen as intimidating to places of worship, such as forceful entry and large-scale deployments.
Dissent as the Real Offence
Ultimately, the actions against those gathered at the Quaker meeting house appear to be a response to dissent itself. Their “crime” seems to be challenging established power and wealth structures. Throughout history, progress and freedom have been driven by protest. Suppressing dissent, therefore, poses a far greater danger to national life than any discussion over tea and biscuits.