Should politicians really be granted greater protection than the rest of us?

John MacLeod

MEMBERS of Parliament are being threatened with rape, death or the stalking and maiming of their families.

Home addresses have been published online and many MPs feel increasingly nervous in the simple practicalities of doing their job, such as holding regular surgeries in their constituencies and making themselves available to the local electorate.

The online abuse is not simply about differences of political opinion, nor strongly partisan statements, nor even mocking and teasing. It is vicious, filthy and hateful ‘trolling’, of the sort endured last week on social media by Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The attacks can be of the most personal, puerile and putrid kind, often using foul language and praying aloud for a most violent and agonising end for their victims. There is undoubtedly a problem – but is the solution for the perpetrators to lose their democratic rights?

Stripping

Westminster may soon pass a law stripping those who abuse MPs online of the right to vote. This is a serious suggestion by the Electoral Commission in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and reflects growing concern at the increasing intimidation of MPs and those who stand as candidates for Parliament.

Even at the height of his political career, sometime Liberal leader David Steel always refused to have an ex-directory home telephone number. Admittedly that was nearly 30 years ago when – with the exception of a few unfortunates who attracted the interests of the IRA – professional politicians could go about their business without fear of assault or worse.

It was before January 2000, when a madman with a samurai sword stormed the surgery of Nigel Jones, Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, seriously injuring him and killing his assistant, Andrew Pennington. And it was emphatically before June last year, when the widely respected Jo Cox – Labour MP for Batley and Spen – was gunned down on the street by a crazed and evil loner.

It is wholly understandable that many MPs now feel daunted, especially when a succession of events – the 2009 Parliamentary expenses scandal, protracted Government austerity, the shock of Brexit and a Trump presidency – seem greatly to have raised the temperature in public life.

The last election seems to have been an exceptionally nasty one. A BBC survey found 87 per cent of MPs experienced abuse and more than half told a Radio 5 Live survey it was the worst election campaign they had experienced in that respect. One Labour MP said someone had threatened to bomb her office. Another MP claimed to have ‘had a bottle smashed on me’.

Millions of voters have never felt so alienated from the political class, nor so furious at their own perceived powerlessness. And, as most in public life soon grasp, around 30 per cent seem perpetually bitter and angry.

In the 1990s, they had but two options – writing wild green-ink letters or mouthing off, often profanely, down the pub. Now, even with only a mobile phone, they can spray instant invective online and incite others to do the most bloodcurdling things.

There is no evident political pattern. Contrary to popular perception, there is as much pro-Union venom out there as the widely publicised outrages of online Nationalist activists. Politicians of the centre-Right are not more likely to be assailed – the most vilified MP during the recent general election was Diane Abbott – but there is legitimate concern at how many of the most targeted politicians are women.

Now the Electoral Commission is thinking aloud about adapting existing penalties for electoral crimes to target those who abuse MPs and candidates online – for instance, by stripping offenders of the right to vote. The commission’s head of policy, Tom Hawthorn, states: ‘Our strong tradition of free elections is an essential part of a healthy democracy and people should be able to stand for election without fear of abuse or intimidation.’

How tempting to agree and, in a righteous, something-must-be-done spirit, call now for special legislation to ringnet all those trolls, anoraks and sad-sacks who menace serving politicians. But this would be a grave mistake – and there are excellent grounds for caution.

There are already perfectly adequate laws. It is an offence to incite violence, to act in a way that puts anyone in a state of fear and alarm, to make a breach of the peace or to indulge in racist, sexist and homophobic abuse.

It may also be rather more difficult to draft effective new legislation than you might think. Words such as ‘trolling’ and ‘online abuse’ are dangerously nebulous, especially in the context of our long British tradition of cheerfully pillorying those in power. And there is no such thing as a right, in law, not to be offended.

Firebomb

It would be self-evidently unacceptable to post Diane Abbot’s address on Twitter and invite the general public to firebomb it, or to call for sexual violence against her, or throw the foulest racial epithets. But should someone be arrested and punished merely for calling her a ‘stupid cow’?

Why should MPs – or those who aspire to become MPs – enjoy particular protection in law? Anyone in public life can be assailed on the internet – sports personalities, broadcasters, members of the Royal Family, journalists or those at once opinionated and famous, such as JK Rowling.

You soon learn not to Google your own name and to ignore the frothings of assorted bloggers and ranters and johnny- no-mates, however tempting it may seem to outsmart them.

‘James Blunt just has an annoying face and a highly irritating voice,’ screeched a foolish lass on Twitter, several years ago. ‘And no mortgage,’ the singer replied solemnly.

The Electoral Commission and Westminster would need to explain why trolling an MP is different and more heinous than trolling any other citizen, from Nick Robinson and the Duchess of York to an out-ofthe-closet diving star or bubblegum-pop artist.

Enormity

Nor should we forget the enormity of denying someone the right to vote, which is not some pocket money privilege graciously granted us by a paternal ruling-class. It is a fundamental civil liberty by which those in power govern legitimately, a liberty for which our forebears lobbied and demonstrated and fought. And who is to say who does not deserve it?

The ballot is properly withheld from those serving prison sentences – even for nonviolent offences – but there should be no other reason for denying the vote to resident British nationals, and to do so on this basis would be to set a dangerous precedent.

There are still those preening bien pensants who – in the wake of last year’s Brexit vote – openly lament the failure of poor, white, working-class people who did not attend university to listen to their betters and vote biddably for Remain.

How long might it be, for instance, before someone suggests that those who have disapproved publicly of samesex marriage, or abortion on demand, are self-evidently unfit to vote? We have already learned, this year, that quiet adherence to traditional Christian sexual ethics will cost you the leadership of the Liberal Democrats. Year upon year, we are growing less tolerant as a society, with ever less dissent permitted against a politically correct line.

Vicious and frightening verbal attacks, with incitement to rape or worse, are already unacceptable in this country – and already unlawful. There is no call for further draconian legislation, striking at the very heart of our democracy.