A Dark Pattern: Silencing Protest in British Politics 

There's an age-old trick in the playbook of the powerful, and it's currently being deployed in Britain: frame your opponents as dangerous extremists to justify a crackdown. This time, the government has Palestinian solidarity activists squarely in its crosshairs. 

Britain's current slide towards authoritarianism follows a depressingly familiar pattern. First, political elites identify and label a group as 'subversive', casting them as a threat to the nation – often with accusations of acting as the pawns of hostile foreign powers. They whip up a state of national emergency, using exaggerated, distorted, or even fabricated evidence to bolster their claims of an immediate danger. The inevitable outcome? Repressive measures are enacted, supposedly to defend the safety of both individual citizens and the nation itself. 

This is precisely what Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had in mind when he ranted about "mob rule" and ominously warned of "forces here at home trying to tear us apart” during his chilling address last Friday. Similarly, ex-Labour MP John Woodcock, now Lord Walney and the Tories' political violence advisor, advocates banning politicians from engaging with vital protest movements such as those opposing the slaughter in Gaza or those fighting for climate action. 

The government is well aware that protests against Israel's brutal assault result in fewer arrests than the crowds at Glastonbury – this despite an arsenal of anti-protest laws so severe that the United Nations' human rights chief has condemned them. However, these maneuvers have little to do with genuine public safety concerns. Instead, they expose a fundamental truth about those in power: they deeply dislike pressure from movements whose political goals they oppose, and they'll ruthlessly use state machinery and scaremongering to suppress them. 

Historical Parallels and Echoes of McCarthyism 

Interestingly, the term "McCarthyism" today is wielded as a weapon by both the left and right to denounce the suppression of their own political beliefs. This suggests that few on the right, when challenged, would openly defend the historical McCarthyism of the mid-20th century – that witch hunt against alleged communist infiltration of American society. Yet, they perpetuate the very same tactics against Gaza protesters today, seeking to deplatform, vilify, criminalize, and even terminate the employment of those demanding a ceasefire. 

Let's not forget what McCarthyism was truly about. It wasn't a genuine fear of communist subversion; it was a calculated move to stigmatize progressive politics and cripple trade unions that had gained unprecedented power and influence in the wake of World War II. The "red scare" was chillingly effective, pleasing the wealthy and powerful as it decimated the ranks of the political left and organized labor. 

Britain's history is littered with similar assaults on workers' movements, all driven by the same underlying motive. Woodcock's proposal that protest organizers foot the bill for policing their demonstrations channels the spirit of Taff Vale, the 1901 legal judgment that crushed unions by saddling them with the costs of industrial action. During Britain's sole general strike in 1926, both Labour and the Conservatives spread fear of revolution, with its crushing defeat paving the way for punitive anti-union laws. Arthur Balfour, the former prime minister, coldly bragged: "The General Strike has taught the working class more in four days than years of talking could have done.” 

Miners, Militias, and the Muzzling of Dissent 

In the 1980s, the Tories were so determined to break the miners because their organized strength was a threat; after all, they had brought down a previous Conservative government a decade before. Although Thatcher had privately branded the miners the "enemy within", she shrewdly opted for a different public narrative after the 1984 Brighton bombing – but there was always the intent to label the Labour party as such. Four decades after the miners' strike, it's striking how public sympathy has swung in the miners' favour, largely thanks to recent documentaries exposing the injustice they faced. It's a reminder that those once branded dangerous extremists often find vindication with the passage of time. 

The insidious underbelly of self-proclaimed democracies lies in their willingness to sacrifice principles when they feel politically threatened. Take, for instance, the years-long scandal where undercover police officers infiltrated environmental groups, building elaborate fake identities and even engaging in long-term relationships with female activists under false pretenses. Such tactics would seem right at home in a repressive state, yet they happened right here in Britain. The rationale? Environmental groups were branded as dangerous threats, making it all too easy to dismiss democratic norms in the name of neutralizing them. 

Hypocrisy in Policing Protests

This chilling double standard in policing protests is impossible to ignore. Recall the lack of outcry over "mob rule" when far-right activists hijacked the Brexit cause, harassing opponents outside Parliament – myself included alongside former Tory MP Anna Soubry. Other extremists marched with a noose and gallows, an explicit threat to then-Prime Minister Theresa May. Meanwhile, self-proclaimed Boris Johnson supporters alternated between chants of loyalty to him and menacing threats to hang his opponents. As Labour MP Jess Phillips rightly observed, the key difference today is that "some of the people who are upset with us at the moment have brown faces.” 

She hits the nail on the head. Tory MPs Suella Braverman and Lee Anderson have distorted the Palestinian solidarity protests – and the significant Muslim presence at these marches – into supposed evidence of creeping Islamic extremism. This not only reveals the deep-seated Islamophobia within the Conservative Party, but it also highlights a basic political reality: the government resents the pressure from a powerful movement with which they fundamentally disagree. Worse still, they resent the scrutiny these protests invite regarding their own complicity. Yet, history's judgment on McCarthyism offers a stark warning. Imagine the verdict on societies that sought to suppress those opposing the massacre of innocent people, instead of those complicit in the slaughter. 

Lessons from History 

The powerful have always had a fraught relationship with protest movements. Strikes in particular, when truly effective, represent workers flexing their most potent tool: collective action to disrupt systems and economies that run on their labour. During the so-called Winter of Discontent in the late 1970s, Conservatives, aided by much of the press, successfully painted strikers as selfish extremists holding the nation hostage. The result was the election of Margaret Thatcher, whose government set about breaking the power of the unions with ferocious determination. It is worth remembering that the public often feels ambivalent about strikes – while sympathizing with the workers' grievances, they simultaneously suffer disruptions to everyday life. Clever politicians can exploit this ambivalence, particularly when strikes affect essential services. 

The same dynamic is at play with anti-war or international solidarity movements. Despite their noble goals, governments and their supporters find it politically convenient to portray such movements as naive dupes, if not outright traitors, manipulated by hostile foreign powers. Protests against the Iraq War were a prime example. Participants were dismissed as apologists for Saddam Hussein, a murderous tyrant – a tactic designed to silence opposition and obscure the catastrophic consequences of an illegal invasion. 

However, the tactic is not always successful. The Stop the War Coalition, for instance, emerged not only stronger from those anti-war protests but was arguably vindicated as the disastrous aftermath of the Iraq invasion unfolded. History may indeed smile upon protest movements, even as those in power work tirelessly to discredit them at the time. 

The Long Game 

Ultimately, it boils down to this: the goal is rarely about winning a particular argument, but rather about shaping public perception over the long term. By painting protesters as extremists and threats, even when this image bears little resemblance to reality, political elites hope to sow doubt and fear in the public mind. This creates a climate in which increased surveillance, harsher laws, and the undermining of democratic safeguards feel justified – even necessary to an anxious population. The powerful know that while a single protest, a single strike, might gain concessions, it's the long-term demonization that truly breaks movements and safeguards their positions. 

What Can Be Done? 

History offers both warnings and glimmers of hope for those who value the right to protest. Firstly, it's vital to call out the hypocrisy of the powerful whenever they feign outrage over 'mob rule'. As we've seen, they display far less concern when the 'mob' is one they approve of. Double standards must be ruthlessly exposed and challenged, whether through journalism, political activism, or social media. 

Secondly, it's important to build public awareness about the vital role that protest plays in a functioning democracy. Protests bring to light injustices the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, and they signal the depth of public feeling on important issues. Those in authority should be held accountable for ignoring or dismissing large-scale protests, with journalists and activists reminding the public that those marches represent far more than mere inconvenience. 

Forming Alliances and Resisting Smears

Thirdly, whenever possible, movements under attack should make common cause with others facing similar repression. For instance, the Palestinian solidarity movement in Britain should find points of solidarity with other causes, from environmentalism to anti-racism campaigns. These alliances strengthen everyone involved. After all, the same tactics are often used to discredit very different movements. Building bridges makes it harder to depict any one group as an 'isolated threat' and reinforces the concept of universal rights that underpin any genuine democracy. 

History has shown that protest movements have frequently defied smear campaigns, particularly when they remain disciplined and focused, committed to non-violence, and skilled at articulating their demands. It's particularly effective when those on the frontlines of protests reflect the diversity of those who support the cause. The Palestinian solidarity movement has a particular strength here, drawing together young and old, people of all faiths and none, cutting across traditional political allegiances. This underscores that this is a humanitarian issue, not a partisan one, thus making it harder for political opponents to sow division. 

The Press: Complicit or Critical? 

There is an additional factor that deserves scrutiny: the role of the press. Britain prides itself on a free and independent media, but a closer look reveals a press heavily dominated by right-wing outlets, with owners who often share the political outlook of those in power. It should thus come as no surprise that movements challenging the status quo often face hostile coverage. Demonizing protesters serves the interests of both the government and sections of the media. However, spaces still exist to challenge skewed narratives, whether through independent media or increasingly through social media. Movements should be savvy and relentless in highlighting biased reporting and promoting alternative accounts and analyses. 

Of course, in the most repressive states, the press is heavily censored, controlled, or simply functions as a propaganda arm for those in power. Thankfully, Britain hasn't reached that stage … yet. But there are worrying signs: the relentless attacks on the BBC, an institution of global renown, driven by the government's desire to control the narrative. Then there's the steady creep of laws designed not to protect the public, but rather to hinder and intimidate those who embarrass the powerful. 

A Slippery Slope 

It's a slippery slope from demonizing protesters to outlawing dissent itself. While it's tempting to think, "It couldn't happen here", history warns us otherwise. Even the most established democracies can become something darker if citizens become complacent about their rights. We should look with concern to recent events in the United States, where protests fuelled by genuine grievances were brutally repressed, with many on the right cynically exploiting events to discredit the entire Black Lives Matter movement. This serves as a stark reminder that those holding the reins of power will rarely hesitate to turn the instruments of the state against those they see as a threat. 

It's precisely in moments of heightened tension, such as the aftermath of a terrorist attack, when vigilance is most crucial. The temptation is to surrender freedoms in exchange for the illusion of greater security. But experience teaches us that once rights are eroded, they're extraordinarily difficult to reclaim. 

The Importance of Language 

Even the language we use matters. The government's frequent use of the term "extremism" is both imprecise and deliberately inflammatory. It conjures images of violence and terrorism, thus justifying a crackdown on entirely legitimate and peaceful protest. Movements should challenge this terminology, making clear that demanding a ceasefire in Gaza or a halt to environmental destruction is not extremism – it's advocating for basic human rights. They should also remind the public that historically, those branded "extremists" are often on the right side of history, from those who fought for women's right to vote to those who defied racial segregation. 

One strategy is to reclaim and redefine these loaded terms. For example, the climate activist group Extinction Rebellion deliberately uses the term "rebellion", embracing a label designed to frighten the public. They understand that the powerful will inevitably try to vilify them, so they might as well use the language in a way that highlights the urgency of their cause. 

Movements, particularly those targeted by the right, also need to anticipate and preemptively defend themselves against predictable attacks. They must expect to be accused of antisemitism, terrorist sympathies, or simply being tools of foreign enemies. They need clear, unequivocal statements condemning violence, and they need to proactively highlight any instances of genuine extremism that may exist within their ranks in order to take ownership of the narrative. This doesn't mean giving in to bad-faith demands; it means being savvy, out-maneuvering their opponents, and denying them easy opportunities for smears and distortions. 

The Power of Protest 

Despite all the forces arrayed against them, it's important to remember that protest movements have a unique strength. Unlike political parties, they're not bound by the need to win elections or hold onto power. They can say the unpopular but necessary things and take principled stands that formal politicians fear doing lest they lose votes. They can shine a fierce, uncompromising light on injustice, galvanizing and radicalizing the public in a way electoral politics rarely does. 

Of course, this also creates a tension. It's when movements tap into deep-seated public anger and frustration, and when they succeed in getting their message across, that those in power begin to feel genuinely threatened. This is often the point when the repression intensifies, but it can also be the moment of a movement's greatest potential. The challenge, however, is translating that momentum into lasting political change. Here, history is less encouraging; movements often excel at highlighting problems and shifting public consciousness, but they're less adept at building enduring structures that can transform society. This is why alliances between movements and political parties, while fraught with tension, are often necessary for achieving long-term goals. 

A Cause for Hope 

While the picture I've painted may seem bleak, it's crucial to remember that protest isn't simply a tool to achieve specific goals, important as those are. It's also an expression of active citizenship, a refusal to be silenced, and an affirmation of hope that a better world is possible. Protest movements keep democratic ideals alive. Even when they don't achieve all their aims, they can inspire, shift the parameters of acceptable debate, and ensure those in power know they're being watched. In repressive times, when the space for dissent shrinks, this becomes even more valuable. 

Ultimately, the fight to protect the right to protest is the fight for democracy itself. Without the ability to challenge, criticize, and hold power to account, we're left only with the illusion of choice, living in a society where the powerful rule without constraint. Those of us who value democracy have a duty to resist this slide into authoritarianism, and that includes defending the rights of even those movements whose goals we may not share. 

The International Dimension 

We cannot ignore the fact that crackdowns on protest movements rarely occur in isolation. The rise of authoritarian populism in recent years is undeniably a global phenomenon. From Hungary to Brazil, we've seen governments elected on promises to "drain the swamp" or crack down on 'enemies of the people'. This rhetoric, remarkably similar across continents, targets anyone deemed an obstacle to a leader's agenda – whether it's journalists, judges, opposition parties, or protest groups, civil liberties are sacrificed in the name of restoring an idealized and often fictional past glory. 

This international dimension means there's great value in movements across borders joining forces. The Palestinian solidarity movement, for instance, already has strong links to activists in other countries facing state repression. Sharing successful tactics, exposing common strategies used by the powerful, and coordinated international protests can all help push back against global trends towards increasingly authoritarian governments. 

There's also a specific European context to consider. Britain is not some isolated island where authoritarianism cannot flourish. Governments across the continent have been steadily eroding freedoms in the name of security, often exploiting public fears over terrorism and immigration. It's thus vital that British movements resisting authoritarianism stand in solidarity with their counterparts in Europe and beyond. After all, the assault on freedoms in one country sets a dangerous precedent for others. 

The Fight Goes On 

The struggle to defend and expand the right to protest never really ends. Even in long-established democracies with strong legal protections, we must be on guard against complacency. Laws can be rewritten, the powerful can manipulate public opinion, and those with authoritarian instincts always lie in wait for moments of crisis to exploit. Winning a battle today offers no guarantee of victory tomorrow. 

Perhaps the most powerful weapon against those who seek to silence protest is memory itself. Movements should proudly invoke the long history of those who fought for the rights we enjoy today. The suffragettes, anti-colonial movements, trade unionists, civil rights activists – all remind us that progress is rarely achieved without a fight. The images of brave individuals standing up to power, whether they be Birmingham lunch counter protesters enduring racist attacks in 1960s America or a lone man facing down tanks in Tiananmen Square, serve as potent symbols of courage and resilience, reminding us what is at stake. 

Ultimately, the power of protest lies not only in changing laws, but in changing hearts and minds. Movements that tap into deep wells of public anger, that articulate a hopeful vision of a better future, and that demonstrate unwavering commitment to justice can defy repression and ultimately prevail. Those in power fear such movements, and with good reason. History belongs to the audacious, to those who believe a better world is possible, and who act tirelessly to make it a reality. The fight is never easy, but it's a fight we cannot afford to lose.