Protests targeting MPs’ homes must not become the norm

On Monday evening, more than 60 activists gathered outside the home of Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative backbencher and former junior defence minister and chair of the Defence Select Committee. The protestors had assembled to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, although several were also heard supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have recently been attacking shipping in the Red Sea. They mustered with placards and a megaphone. One of the signs accused Ellwood of being ‘complicit in genocide’.

Ellwood and his family said that they had been advised by police to ‘stay away’ from their home on the basis that ‘arriving through that crowd would’ve antagonised the situation’. Subsequently, a Dorset police spokesperson said that officers liaised with protestors to ‘ensure people could exercise their right to protest legally and safely without causing significant disorder’. No arrests were made.

New public order legislation was introduced in 2023. But despite this it is far from clear that such activities are currently contrary to the law, unless they amount to threatening behaviour or harassment (or in circumstances where the police have imposed conditions on protestors which are then breached).

The right to peaceful protest is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and UK domestic legislation. It seems clear that the police had regard to the campaigners’ rights to freedom of assembly and association. The police on the scene also appeared to be reluctant to disperse the protestors for fear that it would ‘inflame the situation’.

While the police have a difficult job to do, it is important to note that the right to peaceful protest is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances, including when it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Moreover, the police are entitled to impose lawful restrictions on the behaviour of protestors. Gathering outside an MPs’ house with a megaphone is hardly a forum for constructive public debate.

It is not clear why the protesters targeted the MP for Bournemouth East. He had not held ministerial office for some time and had resigned his position as chair of the Defence Select Committee in September 2023 following a gaffe. He is probably best known for having heroically tried to save PC Keith Palmer during the terrorist attack on Westminster in March 2017. Ironically, Ellwood had recently criticised the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his ‘reckless’ actions in Gaza.

In response to the protest, the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated yesterday that ‘democracy is built on free debate – but increasingly MPs have been targeted by aggressive mobs for exercising those freedoms. We will never let those who intimidate prevail’.

Yet it is hard to see how such activities won’t have an impact on many MPs and prospective candidates. Alice Kearns, the chair of the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Select Committee, argued that: ‘It is wholly unacceptable for a public servant’s private home to be targeted’. She suggested that the actions of the protestors would have ‘a chilling effect on political discourse’ and that it serves ‘only to push politicians to the point where they question whether it is all worth it, especially for their families’. Caroline Dinenage MP quite rightly observed, ‘This kind of behaviour will inevitably stop prospective MPs stepping forward.’

While no one is suggesting that the protestors had any violent intent, Ellwood indicated that the police had put in place a security protocol to protect MPs, surrounded his property with vehicles and deployed an armed response unit to the scene. It is hard to imagine how the family would have felt had they been on the premises at the time.

It is also worth recalling that, in the last decade, two MPs have been murdered by extremists and others have been attacked. Only last month, Justice Minister Mike Freer announced that he was stepping down as an MP as he had received death threats due to his stance on Israel.

The Israel/Gaza conflict is an emotive subject and I have my own views on the activities witnessed at some of the larger protests, which have clearly had a profoundly negative impact on British Jews. But in this instance, it is important to look past the subject matter of the protest. The real question we should ask ourselves is whether behaviour of this sort should be tolerated in a civilised society in respect of any cause. Do we want to see large mobs with megaphones outside the private houses of public servants and, if not, what should we do about it?

The right to peaceful protest is important. However, it is not sufficient to argue that, in circumstances where there is no violent disorder, anything goes. People become angered and protest about many issues. We have seen large scale marches and protests about fox hunting, climate change, student tuition fees and contentious conflicts abroad. When considering what restrictions on public protest are reasonable and proportionate, it is always worth posing the question: would you find such activities acceptable if they were used by your political opponents?

While it is essential for people to have the right to make their views known to their elected representatives, MPs can be visited at Westminster, or in their constituency offices. There is also nothing to stop activists mounting online campaigns to seek to influence them. Lobbying is one thing; the use of large scale protests outside the private home of an MP is crossing the line and could be seen as bullying and intimidation. As Ellwood himself argued, ‘this cannot be normalised’.

If the police advise that they have insufficient powers to disperse protests of this type for breach of the peace, or under current public order legislation, there is an argument that specific legislation should be introduced banning large scale protest outside the residence of public servants. While this stunt may simply reflect the coarsening and increasing polarisation of our political discourse, tolerance of such actions would set a very unfortunate precedent.