This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.
Only a fool would be surprised by the current escalation in tactics by environmental campaigners. When legitimate protest has no hope of success, matters turn radical. That holds true across all democracies.
The Greenpeace action, in which demonstrators draped Rishi Sunak’s mansion in oil-black cloth, was greeted with predictable media hysteria. The protestors are “zealots”, the press screamed.
In the Edwardian era, the same newspapers used precisely the same language – and worse – about suffragettes. Women campaigning for the right to vote were, according to one archive about the treatment of suffragettes by the press, “depicted as neglectful, violent, and disgusting, and further were accused of war-mongering and inciting the downfall of society”. Sound familiar?
Today, the same newspapers laud suffragettes, invoking the campaigners when turning their Culture War ire on trans rights. How times change.
Who today would dare say the suffragettes were on the wrong side of history? They were clearly among this nation’s bravest activists. Without their actions we couldn’t even call this country a democracy. Yet some of their methods were radical to say the least, including bombing the home of Lloyd George, then Chancellor, and soon to be Prime Minister.
Clearly, nobody is arguing that violence is acceptable. It never is. However, the move by suffragettes from peaceful demonstration to aggressive, radical action is a well trodden path. When politicians leave peaceful protestors feeling that their tactics are pointless, action inevitably hardens. Not always into violence, but often into much more radical measures.
When Irish nationalists saw hopes of Home Rule going nowhere, some chose a more militant path, and others eventually moved toward violence. When poll tax protestors realised they were getting nowhere they rioted; the same happened with anti-Vietnam protests in 1960s America.
Again, this is not to say that rioting is acceptable. It is to say that if democratic protest has no means of achieving any of its goals, when it comes to legitimate aims, radicalisation is inevitable.
Unspun | Neil Mackay: The Scottish Government has lost the guts to pass difficult legislation
The suffragettes, for example, realised that outraging the press and the political class was often the only means to get their voices heard. The same holds true for environmental protests today. Sabotaging art galleries, sports events and daily commutes evidently does nothing to improve the climate. But it does get the attention of those ignoring you.
And it cannot be denied that the concerns of environmental protestors have been shunned by the UK government. How else would green activists see the behaviour of Sunak?
Just days after António Guterres, the United Nations General Secretary, warned that global warming has now become “global boiling”, the Prime Minister flew in a private jet to Scotland to announce his decision to ‘max out’ North Sea oil and gas. In the eyes of environmental protestors, Sunak was all but begging them to target him directly.
While it may be unpleasant to see anyone’s home targeted, we must face the fact that the planet is now entering a deadly stage of climate change. One that will leave our children and grandchildren facing a hellish future. Just this morning, it was announced that the world’s oceans have hit their hottest ever recorded temperatures, with devastating consequences for life on Earth.
Also today, a group of the world’s leading climate scientists warned that an Antarctic heatwave has caused sea ice to decline drastically. “Our lives and our future depend on a healthy and functioning Antartica,” they said.
One wonders how future historians – should humanity survive, of course – will look back on this moment. Will they condemn the protestors climbing on the roofs of Prime Ministers? Or the Prime Ministers trashing the planet?
...enjoyed the article? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel