Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
“No practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.” One can rarely improve on the political wisdom of Terry Pratchett. Last week five climate activists felt that core freedom in the form of severe jail sentences for their roles in organising immense disruption to the UK’s road network.
The five- and four-year sentences (though they will serve only half that) were greeted with predictable fury by a raft of supporters and celebrities who fumed in hyperbolic terms at the treatment of the Just Stop Oil Five. The exotically titled UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders declared the jury’s verdict and the sentences a “dark day” for “fundamental freedoms”. Others noted that the sentences were higher than for some violent crime.
Like others, I gasped initially at the sentences. However, I then read the judge’s remarks. The sentences are high partly to deter others but also because the five all have similar convictions that had been treated more leniently with fines or suspended sentences. All were on bail for other offences. The leader, Roger Hallam, was recently convicted for planning to disrupt Heathrow flights with drones. Some have argued for shorter or non-custodial sentences but in the face of persistent defiance prison becomes the only option.
Shutting down the M25 motorway, which orbits London, over successive days was an act of economic and social sabotage and Hallam had planned even greater chaos. The climate cause is pressing and widely supported but these protests could not effect change and instead alienated the public. The campaigners did not target the powerful. The disruption was an end in itself and the victims were ordinary people going to work or school, to hospital, to funerals, or on holiday. The court heard of people losing pay, children with special needs trapped for hours in traffic, a patient with an aggressive cancer who missed their clinic appointment.
There is a long history to civil disobedience, especially over denial of basic rights. The suffragettes, for example, were refused the vote. The five have a platform, a vote and even the Green party to vote for. But they use the rhetoric of a climate emergency to argue that electoral politics is inadequate to the challenge. This is the demagogue’s rationale.
Where the rapporteur, and others, fail is in not grasping two key points. The first is that the law must apply equally to all causes. It is hard to imagine the same outcry over “fundamental freedoms” if rightwingers used similar tactics to protest against the “immigration emergency”.
In any case, the freedom to protest is not absolute. Even the civil rights organisation Liberty accepts the case for limiting the freedoms of anti-abortion activists to campaign outside clinics.
Second, there is a crucial distinction between protest and disruption. The first is an essential right in a democracy, the second is qualified. The challenge of striking the balance has grown as protests, fuelled by social media and a contempt for democracy, become more disruptive. In the pandemic, anti-vaxxers disrupted vaccination clinics. Campaigners target people’s homes. Anti-immigration protests frighten other citizens. All are driven by a righteousness that negates other feelings or concerns. But, for all the fury of the five’s allies, there is no theory of democracy that enshrines the freedom of a few to trample the rights of others.
The UK works to facilitate peaceful protest. The fact that, in recent months, its cities have been routinely disrupted by large and, for some, uncomfortable Gaza demos, policed at great expense, is testimony to this.
Yet people also value their own freedom to get to work, to go about their lawful business. And herein lies the danger of excessive leniency in responding to direct action. In a choice between civil rights and public order, politicians are confident the public favours the latter. Failure to find a balance will lead to more draconian measures.
For proof one need only look at recent Conservative legislation, which targeted not only disruption but also traditional protest, imposing further restrictions, creating new offences and, most worrying, giving police sweeping but vague powers to restrict noise and nuisance. They do not always use these powers well. At the coronation of King Charles the police wrongly detained anti-monarchists peacefully protesting for a republic. More troubling is that some Tories, including a former home secretary, used arguments of public protection to try to ban the Gaza marches.
This flawed legislation was secured primarily because voters felt not enough was being done to curb the excessive tactics of climate activists. This is what happens if ordinary citizens feel the balance has been lost.
Failure to address these concerns plays into the hands of populists and authoritarians and leads to greater clampdowns. Confidence is built not by lofty forbearance but by fair controls and the odd stiff sentence. We can salve our liberal consciences by complaining the tariffs were too high but significant jail time was essential.
Just as good fences make good neighbours so clear boundaries protect essential freedoms. A liberal society requires defending from those who abuse its rights. You have the freedom to vandalise buildings, deface artwork or bring chaos to the roads. And you still have the freedom to take the consequences.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
