London’s Charing Cross Road was distinctly anxious last Saturday. As dusk fell and punters headed towards their evenings of enjoyment, gaggles of protesters congregated around Tube stations, exercising their democratic right to chant “justice for Palestine”. Others were far less respectful, chanting more hate-tinged slogans. Throw in scores of police officers marching determinedly towards Trafalgar Square, and the scene encapsulated how frayed the debate on the Israel-Gaza war has become.
The tone and temperament was jarring. Our political discourse has long thrived with vigorous, passionate debate, but a nastiness over this issue has rapidly developed, and it can’t go unchecked. The police are clearly struggling. The heartbreaking image of poppy sellers in Charing Cross Station surrounded by noisy protesters showed why there is an urgent need to soothe the tensions between those who want to make their voice heard on the Palestinian plight versus those who believe that the protests have become a vehicle for unsavoury views.
The horror of the 7 October attack promoted waves of support and hate, fraying relations between different British communities. In weekend after weekend of marches, a strain of antisemitism has been visible, although one that is far from dominant, leaving British Jews feeling unsafe in their own communities. Chants and placards are designed specifically by some protesters to make them feel threatened. The line between legitimate pro-Palestinian marchers and Hamas supporters has in some cases been worryingly blurred. The unwise decision to hold another major rally on Armistice weekend is openly provocative.
In this febrile crucible, what political leaders say is more important than ever. The Middle East is so complex a situation that many take their cues from senior public figures for leadership.
And that brings us to Suella Braverman.
The Home Secretary made her reputation by being potent and outspoken, opining on cultural debates that MPs often shy away from. But her direct commentary on the Met’s policing has crossed a line for many Tories who are deeply worried about tone.
Braverman’s intervention included the caustic statement that the Met are “playing favourites” with a “double standard” on policing marches. By directly commenting on the operational nature of the police, drawing dividing lines with their treatment of Black Lives Matter protests, comparing them with the sectarian marches in Northern Ireland, the language risks further igniting an already toxic situation.
There are very just criticisms of how the police have acted. Anyone who has witnessed the recent occupation of Liverpool Street Station or the flooding of a Tube carriage by noisy protesters would agree the police have not been as proactive as they should be in dealing with the disruptive element of the marches. With another test in the coming days at what is likely to be the biggest protest yet, Sir Mark Rowley is facing the most difficult moment as Met Police Commissioner.
His task is made even more difficult by bellicose rhetoric. Language matters in political communications as much as what precisely is being said. Compare Braverman’s article with those of Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for Devizes and one of Braverman’s allies. In an interview with the BBC, he argued that the Met needs to fulfil its policing responsibilities fairly. But Kruger noted: “It’s obviously the case that not everybody on these marches is doing the wrong thing or are sympathising with terrorism, very plainly they are sympathising with the Palestinian cause.” Expressing concerns about policing in this manner, without unhelpful dividing lines, is what politicians should be doing.
Striking the right tone is vital for winning any argument on a thorny matter. Take the Rwanda deportation policy, which prompted a similar fury over language used about asylum seekers. Opponents of the scheme flew into outrage at the mere idea of overseas processing for asylum seekers while declining to offer up a viable alternative to deal with the small boats issue. Now Germany, Italy and Austria are all examining schemes similar to the UK without the same opprobrium.
Home affairs is infamously one of the trickiest portfolios in Whitehall. Succeeding in it requires a delicate mixture of lightness on language with toughness on policy. Otherwise, the office holder risks losing support, even from those on the centre-right who are sympathetic to the cause. As one Conservative grandee remarked to me recently about overseas processing: “When I hear the Prime Minister talk about the Rwanda policy, I agree with every word of it. But when I hear the Home Secretary speak of it, I feel the opposite.”
When it comes to policing and protests, the right thing to do is clear. If the Conservatives seek to be the party of law and order and freedom of speech, it should remain steadfastly and always in favour of freedom of speech and law and order – no matter how uncomfortable it might be. George Orwell once noted that poor political rhetoric is designed “to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. In this instance, the danger is that too much wind undermines steadfast principles that few are actually disputing.
Sebastian Payne is director of the centre-right think-tank Onward
Suella Braverman is right about policing – but her ‘hate march’ language is toxic
4
0
09.11.2023
London’s Charing Cross Road was distinctly anxious last Saturday. As dusk fell and punters headed towards their evenings of enjoyment, gaggles of protesters congregated around Tube stations, exercising their democratic right to chant “justice for Palestine”. Others were far less respectful, chanting more hate-tinged slogans. Throw in scores of police officers marching determinedly towards Trafalgar Square, and the scene encapsulated how frayed the debate on the Israel-Gaza war has become.
The tone and temperament was jarring. Our political discourse has long thrived with vigorous, passionate debate, but a nastiness over this issue has rapidly developed, and it can’t go unchecked. The police are clearly struggling. The heartbreaking image of poppy sellers in Charing Cross Station surrounded by noisy protesters showed why there is an urgent need to soothe the tensions between those who want to make their voice heard on the Palestinian plight versus those who believe that the protests have become a vehicle for unsavoury views.
The horror of the 7 October attack promoted waves of support and hate, fraying relations between different British communities. In weekend after weekend of marches, a strain of antisemitism has been visible, although one that is far from dominant, leaving British Jews........
© iNews
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
