Britain’s Parliament will require visitors to undergo identity checks, as politicians become increasingly concerned about their personal security. This is the first time in its history, with the institution previously presenting itself as open to public scrutiny and allowing direct access to elected representatives.
News that Parliament will toughen up its security comes less than a fortnight after protestors projected the slogan “from the river to the sea” on its iconic exterior tower, known worldwide as Big Ben.
Last week, Rishi Sunak spoke out against the “poison” of extremism, albeit by pandering to the Left by equating a surge of Islamist threats to the “impotent” far-right. His response—imposing new limits on freedom of expression to deal with a growth in sectarian politics—now threatens to restrict openness and accessibility to public life.
Currently, the Palace of Westminster is one of the most open parliaments in the world. It is unlike many of its European counterparts in that visitors are not required to confirm their identity with a passport or some other form of ID. But identity checks will now “definitely happen,” and soon, a security source told The Times.
The newspaper reported that restrictions are being “accelerated,” following the “beyond alarming” election of Rochdale MP self-styled “Gaza George” Galloway. The measures could be finalised as pro-Palestine demonstrators prepare for their 10th national march in London, calling for a Gaza ceasefire.
Previous London marches included chants of “jihad, jihad, jihad“—backed by antisemitic banners and placards—and “from the river to the sea,” effectively a call for Israel to be wiped off the map. While the protests express luxury beliefs about events—with the negligible involvement of the British state—taking place thousands of miles away, some MPs are rightly concerned about their own safety.
While pro-Hamas slogans were used outside Parliament last week, the elected representatives inside considered sitting ‘in private’ for the first time in more than two decades, formally in fear of how the public would judge its debate on whether to call for a Gaza ceasefire. This would have seen visitors and journalists thrown out of the House of Commons and the official parliamentary report for that sitting scrapped.
Suspicions abound that this official response misrepresents the security issue. Despite a high death toll from Islamist killings in the United Kingdom since 2005, Sunak and others insist on equating this real danger with the threat of the ‘far right’. This elusive category includes critics of mass immigration and official multiculturalism, two components of government policy helping Islamist grievance politics to fester in Britain (and exploited by opportunists such as Galloway). Sunak’s misguided ‘safety-first’ approach, which fences off genuine public concern as “extreme”, can only make matters worse.
Democracy is also being disrupted at the level of local authority meetings and at constituency offices. While town and city councils have even less bearing on Gaza than Westminster, their elected representatives remain a target. One Labour staffer has even claimed to be acting like a “bodyguard” for their MP, saying: “I’ve started to walk him home, so I’m there to protect him.”
For some, the intimidation has become too much. Senior Labour figure Harriet Harman suggested last month that MPs should be allowed to work from home, where they won’t feel “under pressure” from protesters—suggesting that she would prefer it if extraordinary lockdown measures were made permanent. Ultimately, though, this idea was rejected by Sunak, for now at least.
Tory minister Mike Freer also announced at the end of January that he will step down at the next election after receiving death threats over his pro-Israel views. Freer made his decision after discovering that radical Islamist Ali Harbi Ali had visited his constituency office with the intention of killing him, before going on to murder Sir David Amess in broad daylight.
Freer’s decision, much like the decision to increase the security of Parliament, is obviously not without foundation. But it is a sorry sign of a political system that is trembling with fear and reducing democratic accountability and free speech. Staging a debate about a distant foreign policy question has allowed some MPs to signal their virtue—while inadvertently flagging up the retreat of the political class at home.
