In British politics, where the winds of controversy blow with unpredictable force, the home secretary Suella Braverman has recently emerged as something of a lightning rod for dissent. Her comments in The Times on Wednesday, accusing the Metropolitan Police of political bias, precipitated a deluge of censure and prompted widespread calls for her sacking. Yet, as the fallout rumbles on, it’s become increasingly clear that the home secretary’s only crime was striking a chord with those, like her, unashamedly unafraid of going against the grain.
Braverman’s words have upset the delicate sensibilities of the establishment. Accusing the Met of “double standards” and playing favourites with certain demonstrators was, according to her detractors, an overstep. Some went so far as to say that it was a breach of ministerial protocol. An argument swiftly dismissed. The home secretary’s column, although not approved by Downing Street, did not violate rules on collective responsibility. The ministerial code requires clearance of major announcements out of No. 10 at least 24 hours prior to publishing, but being largely rhetorical and devoid of new policies, Braverman’s article did not breach this code. Downing Street supported this stance, insisting that the intention of her article was not to convey a government policy position.
So, what’s the fuss? The baying for Braverman’s blood stemmed from her remarks about pro-Palestinian rallies, particularly the one controversially, disrespectfully, scheduled for Armistice Day. A powder keg of sensitivities in the current climate, but their prerogative nonetheless. But it was Braverman’s contention that these ‘pro-Palestinian mobs’ have been ‘largely ignored’ by the police since Hamas terrorists invaded Israel on October 7th, even when breaking the law, that elicited such furious retorts.
The home secretary, in my eyes at least, raised legitimate concerns about the Met’s perceived non-interventionist approach to what she quite accurately brands ‘hate marches’. These pro-Hamas events, masquerading as ‘pro-Palestinian’ demonstrations, have been a regular affair in central London since the day 1,200 innocent men, women and children were callously murdered based on their Jewish identity, while 200 more were kidnapped. It was an event that could only be characterised as a chilling pogrom reminiscent of the unspeakable horrors witnessed during the Holocaust. Those horrors continue, with no meaningful signs of a ceasefire on the horizon. Braverman pointed out that during these marches on the streets of Great Britain, terrorists are celebrated, Israel is vilified, and Jews all over the world are forced to live with an all too reminiscent threat of violence.
The issue at hand here is not the curbing of free speech or the banning of these marches as, erroneously, Braverman and prime minister Rishi Sunak had requested ahead of the Armistice Day demo. It’s about the clear emergence of a two-tiered policing system. For context, the Met — absurdly reluctant to intervene against those endorsing the mass genocide of Jews — recently arrested a man for sharing a video of himself online, taking umbrage with the Palestinian flags draped over shop fronts and street lights on Bethnal Green Road in east London. This is an area heavily populated by the Islamic community. A place where this man has likely started to feel intimidated. A place where he is the minority. “Look at this crap here,” he said in the video. “This is the shite they come up with.” Fast forward just a matter of hours and half a dozen Met officers bundled this man into the back of a police van, having arrested him on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence.
Yet, when questioned about the blatantly racist, anti-Semitic displays on the streets of London, Met officers conveniently shift from their usual commitment to combating ‘hate speech’ to proudly championing free expression. If that isn’t an astonishingly selective and hypocritical approach that raises genuine concerns about the force’s impartiality, I don’t know what is.
In reality, the situation portrayed by Braverman is worse than she makes out in The Times. The Met’s handling of protests and political causes is a million miles from ‘even-handed’. Some British police forces are actively accommodating anti-Semites, employing hate speech laws as and when they feel like it. This was particularly evident when a Greater Manchester police officer tore down posters bearing the faces of kidnapped Israeli children in a bid to prevent further ‘community tension’. The ‘jihad’ chants, though? Free expression, say the Met.
It’s staring us, and the powers that be, in the face. These pro-Palestinian ‘anti-racists’ are the ones perpetuating the racism. These self-proclaimed ‘anti-fascists’ are the ones embracing fascism. Those, like the home secretary, who stand united against such extremities are branded ‘far right’, but in reality, they simply advocate for what is right. Fascism has indeed returned to Britain. But, this time, it’s hiding beneath a foreign flag.
So, as we look beyond this cacophony of condemnation — did Braverman not just write the truth? Say what we were all thinking? There was certainly more than a nugget of veracity in her assertion that, for some time now, the Met have been playing a dangerous game of political favouritism.
The juxtaposition in their treatment of pro-Palestinian protesters with that of other groups is glaring. While Braverman’s critics decry her for allegedly stoking ‘hatred and division’, the real source of discord lies in the stark contrast between the policing of politically sensitive protests and the handling of those who counter.
Braverman reminds us of officers taking the knee with Black Lives Matter demonstrators during lockdown, opting to overlook the mass pandemic rule break while thousands upon thousands were heavily fined and criminalised for nipping round their friend’s house for a cup of tea and a catch up. She also points out the ongoing leniency shown towards Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion activists, who have even earned praise from senior officers for their passionate dedication to an ‘important cause’. This pattern, where the police favour some and crack down on others, only furthers Braverman’s compelling case. But those with an agenda against the home secretary — from our political and media elites to social media’s liberal left — continue to pretend that they’re completely oblivious to this manifest inclination.
I’m not advocating for anarchy, nor do I undermine the importance of maintaining public order. But a whiff of hypocrisy hangs in the air when we witness such a striking disparity between the policing of dissenting voices and the kid-glove treatment of terrorist sympathisers marching through our capital city on what is our day of solemn remembrance. Is it not the duty of a home secretary to raise concerns about such things?
The pushback against Braverman’s column from within her own party is disheartening, yet it appears more indicative of strategic positioning within a party facing electoral defeat than anything else. The likes of Paul Scully, minister for London, urging her to ‘dampen things down’ rather than ‘fuel hatred and division’, have completely missed the point. Braverman’s role is not to sugar-coat reality but to bring attention to the issues rapidly eroding the public’s trust in our institutions.
Keir Starmer and Ed Davey say she’s ‘out of control’ and the SNP believe she’s ‘unfit for office’. But these jibes are little more than a tired political playbook. When confronted with uncomfortable truths, the response is often to shoot the messenger rather than provide a solution to the underlying problem. It’s a cop out. And an all too predictable one at that. The calls for her sacking from within her own party, again, reek of political posturing, attempting to stifle disputes within the ranks.
Large swathes will head out to the polls and vote for a party that champions free speech and challenges the status quo. Braverman’s willingness to stick her head above the parapet and speak out against potential bias within our police force should not be dismissed as an overreach. Instead, it should be seen as a courageous stance that reflects the concerns of many left fearing the erosion of democratic values.
In a political landscape where defiance is increasingly smothered, we should applaud a politician who, most unlike a politician, has come out and delivered the unvarnished truth. Removing Braverman from office would not only be a disservice to the principles of free speech but it would likely amount to Tory suicide. The electorate appreciates authenticity and the courage to address awkward actualities, even if that means weathering a critical storm until it blows over with thanks to the next faux pas.
In the end, the question is not whether the home secretary has upset the applecart to the point of no return, but whether her words struck a chord with a significant portion of the electorate. I’d suggest it’s the latter. The Met and some of her more liberal, panicky colleagues might well see her as a disruptor, but sometimes disruption is necessary to ensure that our institutions are held accountable — and the voices of ordinary citizens are not drowned out by the tumult of political warfare.
The Column 
Leave a comment