General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate; it is a privilege to follow the previous speech. I want to put on record my appreciation for the comments made earlier about the House’s security services and the police in our constituencies who do an excellent and often difficult job in ensuring that candidates and, probably more importantly, their staff are safe.

Democracy and society demand that intimidation and abuse have no part in the process. Coupled with individual responsibility, it is well beyond time that social media platforms look to their responsibilities. The growing use of social media is well documented, as is the effect of its use as a tool of intimidation and abuse. Research into why it is used as a tool of intimidation is increasing. A Demos report from May 2017 states:

“What is clear though, is that the anonymous and ‘safe distance’ nature of social media platforms allows such abuse to be handed out far less respectfully than it would usually be if delivered face-to-face.”

That highlights the conflict between the platform and the democratic and societal function we require of it, and indeed what social media platforms offer.

It is the removed nature of social media that creates an environment that is so conducive to abuse and intimidation —it is made so easy. In their November 2016 report, Lowry and Zhang said:

“Heavy social media use combined with anonymity facilitates the social learning process of cyber bullying in social media in a way that fosters cyber bullying.”

In other words, the very tool of intimidation and bullying facilitates and promotes the learning of that bullying. The addictive nature of such communication, which is so important to society, is now being corrupted as an addictive tool of abuse.

If anonymity were removed, an individual or group would need to think, “I will be held to account for what I am about to say.” The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) was kind enough to allow me to make a short intervention in the 12 July Westminster Hall debate on abuse in UK elections, which allowed me to raise questions about a code of conduct and anonymous social media accounts. Within hours of that debate I—and, I expect, the hon. Gentleman—received social media abuse pointing to not just the stupidity of my idea, but my stupidity for raising it. I will take this opportunity to answer those people.

I agree that the anonymity of a dissident’s public-facing social media account is essential. However, I do not accept a user’s anonymity to the facilitator of their account. It is unacceptable for someone to intimidate and abuse an individual for whatever reason. Disagree and argue about the idea, but not about the individual characteristics of the advocate. Platforms should have a responsibility to react much quicker to such comments.

I fully accept that my experience after that debate is but a mere toe in the water compared with the vile abuse received by other right hon. and hon. Members, especially women. It must also be borne in mind that the intimidation and abuse of those who unsuccessfully stand for elected office, and of those who offer assistance—both paid and as volunteers—will surely make people question their future participation.

I raise that example because of the damage any such personalised abuse and intimidation does to the younger generation who watch on. As a teacher, I know the damage that social media abuse does to our young people when that abuse is started and spread by other young people. When such abuse is highlighted, society rightly points to it and says how wrong it is. When children share inappropriate photographs with each other, we highlight the damage to the victim, the danger and the criminality, but we also seek to educate and to point out why such sharing is wrong.

But the generation that follows us witnesses our actions, our behaviour and our choices, and those actions, behaviours and choices have as great an impact on their behaviour and choices as any face-to-face discussion after the event. Our younger generation—our future politicians, activists and leaders—witnessed appalling behaviour by adults during the general election. I speak beyond those who are a member of a political party, and beyond the staff and friends of independent candidates. I speak of the responsibility of those who affiliate, sympathise or associate with candidates, or who just use a candidate’s name. There is a duty to act respectfully and responsibly.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said in the Westminster Hall debate:

“We owe it to our democracy to make clear that intimidation and abuse have no part in our society, not only for candidates who stood at the recent general election but for future generations of men and women who are considering entering public life and standing for election.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 168-69WH.]

I completely agree with those sentiments. Our future generations demand of us more respect for each other.

In summing up, I wish to make reference to principles for the protection and promotion of human rights. This has been quoted frequently before, but it can stand another quote:

“Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators...ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with the effective remedies...and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations”.

Perhaps it is time for those who seek to act like states—the great social media platforms—to look to their responsibility not merely as a tool, but as a publisher and a major participant and facilitator of the modern-day social demos. We, as adults, need to look to the responsibility we have to future generations not only to take no part in intimidation and abuse, but not to stay silent when that occurs. Now is the time to end online tribalism—

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and some powerful points. When these debates occur online, there needs to be some clarity, as there is a difference between free speech and abuse. The point he is alluding to is that abuse is often dressed up as free speech, but when there is such an intervention, we have to say that abuse is not free speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Something is rotten in the state of Britain. I underline that opening remark by highlighting and referring to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has just said in a remarkably concise and powerful speech, in which I found nothing to disagree with.

I stand here this afternoon as one who has fought six parliamentary elections, the first being in 1997—in that watershed year for the Scottish Tories—in Greenock and Inverclyde and then, more luckily, in East Devon, which I have represented since 2001. Although I know that some Members believe that the changed way of politics—this growing bullying, harassment and intimidation that we see on social media—has been growing over a period, I do not actually believe that. I think that there is absolutely no question at all but that 2015 and, worse, 2017 saw the highest levels of personal abuse that we have seen.

We need to put this into some form of context. As elected representatives, we are not above the law. We should be held to the highest standards, and we should not put ourselves on a pedestal. We are open to criticism. Some of our constituents like to criticise us on a regular basis. It gives some of them enormous pleasure to berate us when they see us in our constituencies and tell us that we have not answered an email or a letter. If that gives them pleasure, that is part and parcel of the job as far as I see it. However, what we and our families should not be subject to is anonymous attacks. Granted, when I said that we should put this into context—I do not believe that we should be precious—we should look back at elections fought by our predecessors in the 17th and 18th centuries. Look at the cartoons around this House by Gillray, Rowlandson and Hogarth. They were much more physically intimidatory. Street fights and candidates getting beaten up were a regular occasion. I am not suggesting for a minute that we should return to that rather uncivilised way of going about our business. What I am saying is that there is a history of holding politicians to account during election campaigns.

I do not know what has happened. I look forward to the forthcoming review because that will better inform us. Perhaps it is the result of new people coming into politics for elections. The referendum in Scotland and the referendum over Europe were both very divisive; maybe that has engendered some rage that we had not hitherto been aware of or tapped into. Maybe it is because people no longer accept the democratic will of elections and feel that they have been cheated in some way.

My constituency is normally a very civilised place in which to go about one’s electoral business, but we have seen an increase in such activity. Our political opponents historically were the Liberal Democrats. We used to say that the Liberal Democrats were ripping down our posters and so forth but, amazingly, the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit in the last election. They were replaced by an independent candidate who hoovered up all the anti-Conservative vote. Regrettably, this candidate—either advertently or inadvertently—attracted a huge amount of people online who were very abusive towards me. That did not matter so much, but they were often abusive to those canvassing on my behalf. The candidate was backed up by independent councillors and a website that I will not dignify by naming. It is all part and parcel of a group of disaffected people who believe that personal abuse is the best way of attacking the sitting Member of Parliament. They are people for whom the glass is always half empty. If one target fails, they move on to another. That is not particularly healthy.

Earlier, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), how many people had been prosecuted for such abuse and intimidation, and the answer was 15,000. I now ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who in his place, how many people have actually been sentenced for this vile behaviour. How many people have been given a custodial sentence? You see, I can take it; I do not mind this level of attack. I did point it out on election night—that did not go down particularly well with some of the propagators or with a local newspaper that supported them—but I can take it. However, the levels of racist abuse that some Members and candidates have had to put up with, and the levels of attack on women, are unfair and completely unacceptable.

We were talking only yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions about how many women there are in Parliament. It is something we can all celebrate. The Conservative party is enormously proud that we were the first party in the country to have a female Prime Minister. We now have a second female Conservative Prime Minister. I have daughters who may one day want to come into this House. Indeed, I very much hope that they will consider it, but why should they if they know they are going to be subjected to these vile, anonymous goings-on on the internet?

We need to look carefully at the existing legislation and protections and at how the police handle these things. It is almost tempting to say that the police have a lack of resources, but I think it goes much wider than that. During the recent general election campaign, a large number of my posters were regularly vandalised and disappeared. We reported that to the police but, frankly, they did not seem particularly interested—although, in all fairness, there is not much they can do if the poster has disappeared.

We want to attract people into this place. It should be full of short people, fat people, white people, black people, gay people and straight people—it does not matter. It is meant to be representative of the country. But people look at this place and see the levels of abuse to which we are subjected. They must think to themselves, “Do I really want to subject myself to that level of abuse? If I want to represent my community, is it worth subjecting me and my family to those levels of abuse?” The answer must be no. We should be able to go about our business without fear or favour and without being hounded by anonymous bloggers or other people online. So we need the defamation and libel legislation that follows the newspapers to be mirrored online, and we need the sanctions to be the same.

As the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) said earlier, there is a very, very narrow balance. On the one side, there is the freedom of speech, and I think all of us in this House would fight to preserve people’s right to criticise us in good faith and with reason, because we should be held to account—we are the people’s representatives here at Westminster. However, on the other side of the divide is something that is not about the freedom of speech, but about people who seek to undermine others by slander, libel, bullying and intimidation. That is where the line is—it is a very clear line—and it is about time we took it a little more seriously.

[Graham P. Jones]

I am listening intently to the points the right hon. Gentleman is making, and he refers to the point I made earlier, but does he not accept that we are in danger of losing a degree of freedom of speech because of bullying online? It is simply not possible to engage in a broad-minded and open debate when a volume of people insist on handing out personal abuse.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not want to be party political at this point, but I would just say this: it is also incumbent on us to say the right things and to behave in the right way, and it is regrettable when we have people such as Len McCluskey and the shadow Chancellor seeking to cherry-pick which laws of the country should be obeyed, and encouraging, at times, civil disturbance if they do not get their way. That, in turn, engenders a feeling that the people have been cheated of the electoral result that was their due and, again, creates a whirlwind of abuse online.

[Graham P. Jones]

I am simply not going to disagree with the point the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

This is not really a political point, but I also feel tremendous sympathy for my friends on the Opposition Benches—and I do have friends of long standing on the Opposition Benches—who have come under horrendous criticism from the Momentum movement in their own party. Some of that has been absolutely vile, and I feel extremely sorry for them, having to operate with that going on as well.

Whether it is Momentum or people on the right criticising, let us try not to be parti pris over this. Let us get some regulations, and let us get some convictions of people who are making it extremely difficult, particularly for women and people from ethnic minorities, to come into this Chamber and to operate in this environment, because if they do not, Parliament and the country will be weaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

“Where’s my shotgun?” Those were the words I heard from the receptionist at a venue where I held a surgery a year to the day after the murder of Jo Cox. I should confess that my reaction was to think of it as just another example of the casual contempt with which many members of the public treat politicians in this day and age. Wrongly, I rather brushed off the comment, which in any other context would be treated as pretty obscene. I say that that was wrong partly because of the upset it caused to my staff, who were helping me with the surgery. They are by no means thin-skinned, and I do not think that I am either, but they see a continuum, as the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has said, from the contempt—particularly online and very often in person—that starts as casual abuse but somewhere crosses a line and can become some form or other of very real abuse and pose a threat to people in real life.

In my judgment, I have never experienced any serious abuse on the scale of some of the extraordinary and quite moving examples we have heard today, and I do not want to pretend that I have experienced anything that equates to any of those examples. However, I want to talk about the continuing contempt with which the public—in small numbers, but often at great volume—treat politicians. I want to pose questions, to which I do not necessarily have any answers, about whether everyday contempt and abuse are to some extent the building blocks or enablers of greater levels of much more extreme abuse, as well as about the extent to which we can tackle it or should put up with it.

Several Members have talked about the role of social media companies, particularly Twitter and Facebook. It seems to me that, as has been mentioned a couple of times by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), we need to tread a very careful line between reining in free speech and setting the right parameters for debates that are rightly robust, given the gravity of the decisions we as politicians have all signed up to take.

Some Members have suggested that the way in which Facebook or Twitter deal with complaints of abuse are inadequate, and in some cases the evidence we have heard shows that that is clearly true. However, it strikes me that I do not want to live in a country where those who set the parameters of free speech are Facebook or Twitter. Whether or not we like it, it is down to us to set the parameters of free speech. I would like the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to set out what constitutes free speech, not Mark Zuckerberg or the founders of Twitter, although I mean no disrespect to their remarkable achievements.

[Graham P. Jones]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. Does he share my view that free speech arises where a debate is able to reach a conclusion without being interrupted or stopped by abuse, and where such a democratic debate is based on discourse and an exchange of views?

[Matt Warman]

Absolutely. Although we would never seek to end the debate on Facebook, if the hon. Gentleman sees what I mean, we must acknowledge that some of those debates will ultimately end with a vote in this Chamber. That is the case that we as politicians must continually make.

I do not pretend for a moment that we will ever convince everyone to be nice or to agree with us on the internet—nor should we seek to do so—but we should realise that part of tackling the smaller building blocks enabling larger problems of abuse is relentless political engagement, whether that is in the form of the Education Centre a few hundred yards from the this Chamber or all of us continuing to hold our regular surgeries whatever a receptionist may say. We should not blame Facebook or Twitter for the abuse we face. Ultimately, we have to acknowledge, as the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton said, that we are sometimes experiencing the unpalatable real face of views that are sincerely held by members of the public. If we find those views unpalatable, it is surely our role to have the debate we just talked about and try to change some of those minds, but that is harder than ever in the social media age. Whatever the size of a constituency, there will always be more constituents than Members of Parliament, so we cannot engage with every single individual, much as we wish we could.

As a number of speakers said, politics should be a debate about policy, but the fact is that in every election campaign we all make politics personal. We talk about our own characters and about why people should vote in a representative democracy for one representative rather than another. We should be careful about having our cake and eating it, and saying, “We should talk only about policy, but here on my leaflet is a picture of me and my family.” To tackle all of those things, we have to say that politicians ultimately set the boundaries of free speech and that, by working with social media companies, we will ensure that free speech is properly experienced in the real world.

Ultimately, we should acknowledge that there are hugely passionate debates online and in person, which we should protect, because of the gravity of the decisions we take in this place. We should be clear about where we draw the line between abuse and free speech. In recent years, thanks to social media, the line has become a lot blurrier and the area has become a lot greyer than we might wish it to be. If politicians are to tackle the small building blocks of abuse, we have to address that issue much more clearly—I do not for a moment suggest that it is of the same order of magnitude as the extreme forms of abuse that we have heard about today, but if we are to tackle the social media side of the problem, which so many people have spoken about, we have to acknowledge that we hold the solution in our hands, and we cannot pass the buck to others.

[Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to make a few points. We have to be defenders of free speech, and debates that do not end with a conclusion from both sides or are curtailed for whatever reason cannot be described as free speech. Debates are often curtailed because of abuse, and I believe that free speech is diminishing in this country because of the amount of abuse that is handed out—on social media, by and large. I will come to that point in a second.

There are extreme cases. Some people have mental health issues and pose a threat, but they are in a different category from the people who carry out volume abuse. During the general election, one of my constituents, who had problems, decided to post online that he was going to stab me in the chest multiple times. Of course, I reported it to the police. I did not personally feel under any threat, and it transpired that the person had a lot of issues and needed help. I was just the person they were targeting at the time; they could have targeted anybody.

Then there are people who just hand out abuse. We had a great MP in my constituency; the last MP was good, but I am talking about the MP before him, a Conservative, Ken Hargreaves. I had a lot of time for him, and I spoke to him about being an MP many times before he passed away. He used to say to me, “I would get a few letters on a Friday. I had a part-time member of staff, and I would answer three or four letters.” MPs today live in a completely different world from the one Ken lived in as MP for Hyndburn between 1983 and 1992. This House must address those issues and the different world we live in.

I come to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) made about people who carry out volume abuse at a very low level. My concern is that a lot of these people—I know them in my constituency—are handing out abuse to other people, too. They are doing it on the street. It is their nature and their character. I say to them, “You’re giving me abuse as though it is transactional—as though you would do this just to an MP—but it is not. It is a display of your character and of what you do to other people, not just me.” It is incumbent on us as Members to challenge these people, because they go on to do unpleasant things to other people. Members of Parliament are not the issue here. The real issue is those who are handing out abuse and how they conduct themselves in general, because some of them go on to do dreadful things to other people. We should reflect on the fact that if someone is handing out abuse, generally they have a problem, and generally that problem affects other people in society.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

During the election campaign, I called out abuse, as an LGBT candidate. I spoke to many young LGBT people in Plymouth who are scared of calling out abuse themselves, but to whom the example of calling it out gave strength. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on us to call it out, even though it might be hard and difficult?

[Graham P. Jones]

I think we are sometimes hesitant to call out abuse. Sometimes the volume can be so great that we walk away. I hope that the Government review will look into the cumulative impact of low-volume abuse, how we manage free speech, and how people, as my hon. Friend suggests, sometimes recoil from engaging. As he says, when Members who feel abused come together and make a strong point, it offers a deterrent to those who are being abusive. As a society, we must tackle the issue. On a small point, it would be nice if social media had “dislikes” as well as “likes”. Let us have a disapproval rating for some of these abusers—that would be very helpful.

Finally, the nadir of this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, we have families. I would like to say for the first time something that I never say—I never put my family on leaflets; I keep them out of it—which is that I have an eight-year-old daughter at school. The abuse directed at me from my own side when the airstrikes vote took place affected my family. I look at that eight-year-old. She did not deserve the comments from some disgraceful people who call themselves Labour party members. They should be thrown out. We have families and they are affected. It is about time some people woke up to the fact that we are not robots and are not there to be abused. Also, there are people who are not on the ballot paper who are victims of this abuse.