Roger Howard: The placard protest – a conservative perspective

Roger Howard is a writer and broadcaster specialising in international relations. He is the author of ‘Power and Glory: France’s Secret Wars with Britain and America 1945-2016’.

When, last Saturday, I joined hundreds of other protestors in Central London to hold a placard in ‘support’ of an organisation – which I cannot name in this column – I did so as a lifelong Conservative Party member and voter. So why was I, and some others around me – although I won’t claim that my own political affiliations were typical – prepared to do this, risking the full wrath of the law ?

The reason was not that I thought my own actions would help end the suffering – the genocide – of innocent people in Gaza. On the contrary, I knew that the organisation’s own actions, and any ‘support’ shown for those actions, won’t make a blind bit of difference. Israel obtains its arms from numerous sources, mainly in the United States, and besides, holding placards doesn’t do anything that any other, less controversial form of protest, won’t do.

Instead, let’s just leave aside the political cause and look at our most ancient freedoms – the right to protest, and the right to free speech – that are under attack from the Terrorism Act 2000.

Just consider its terms. If it merely threatens or uses “serious damage to property” then an organisation can be called “terrorist”. So should throwing paint at statues or paintings, for example, really be put on par with the mass killing of innocent people, in the same way at the 7/7 or 9/11 attacks?

Nor does this statute even specify how much involvement the specific organisation should have with the acts of ‘serious damage’ or any other outlawed deed: if an organisation has, say, one or two rogue members under its wing, it is put on par with another outfit that calls, openly and explicitly, for its members to behave in such a way.

Equally, the 2000 legislation states that you are complicit in terrorism even if you merely “express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”. But this is reprehensible: we should be free to at least voice opinions without risking arrest. It is of course quite different to show your ‘support’ in a more proactive way, for example by fund-raising or organising.

It gets more complicated, and dangerous. Suppose, back in the ‘70s and ‘80s, some anti-apartheid groups had been banned because some of their members had committed some minor acts of vandalism. You might, under the same law, be arrested not just because you were overheard supporting those specific groups but, maybe, for making appreciative comments about someone – like some well-known celebrity – who was involved with them or who had signalled their support. Maybe even just for criticising the apartheid regime. Where does this end?

Just imagine chatting away with a partner or friend in a pub or restaurant, or at a bus stop or in some other everyday situation. Then, in almost no time, you have a knock on your front door from the police, wanting statements about what you said.

Twenty-five years on, it’s time to take a decisive stance against the Terrorism Act. Holding placards is the best way of showing exactly what is wrong with that dangerous piece of legislation and getting the point across. It’s time for a thinking Conservative to unite with others, from across the political spectrum, and stand up for our ancient liberties.

The post Roger Howard: The placard protest – a conservative perspective appeared first on Conservative Home.