It is in the interests of both the police and Extinction Rebellion to compromise

Editorial: While we hope the police interpret the rules about protest in a liberal and balanced way, we argue that it is in the interest of the cause XR espouses that protesters avoid confrontation

Extinction Rebellion protesters in 2019 (AFP/Getty)

Extinction Rebellion (XR), the environmental protest group, has played a clever game ahead of its “Impossible Rebellion” planned to begin on Monday, by warning Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, against unlawful arrests.

As we report today, the group has reminded the commissioner of a Supreme Court ruling in June, which acquitted protesters who had blockaded an arms fair four years ago. XR has demanded that the Met clarify its policy of “pre-emptive arrests”, and that it guarantee that the policing of the new protest will take into account the Supreme Court’s requirement that the police must not “disproportionately interfere with a citizen’s rights of expression and assembly”.

As a result of that ruling, hundreds of XR protesters have had their convictions quashed, and it makes sense to invite the Met to think carefully before making mass arrests next time.

The Met has responded with some skill. Matt Twist, deputy assistant commissioner, said: “Like everyone else, Extinction Rebellion have the right to assemble and the right to protest. However, these rights are qualified and are to be balanced against the rights of others. They do not have the right to cause serious disruption to London’s communities and prevent them going about their lawful business.”

Let us hope this elaborately polite exchange before the real business begins means that both sides are going to be equally tactical when the protests begin. We trust that Ms Dick has learned the lesson of the overly heavy policing of the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common earlier this year. It will do nothing to convince observers that the police mean it when they talk about respecting the right to protest if young people who care about the sustainability of human life on this planet are met with excessive force.

Unfortunately, the government has needlessly raised the temperature of this debate by trying to pass the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, a counterproductive bit of party-political advertising dressed up as legislation. The police do not need additional powers to criminalise demonstrations – existing law is well able to deal with noisy protests or nuisance.

For its part, XR ought to learn the lesson of previous protests, which is that the British public tends to have an unfavourable view of it, by a two-to-one margin. While the group’s protests have raised its profile – three-quarters of the public have heard of it – and may have attracted recruits and donations, they have usually irritated and annoyed the general public rather than convinced them of the urgent need for action to avert climate disaster.

The Independent is sympathetic to the group’s core message, which is why we would want to see it pursued in ways designed to persuade doubters of its importance. In our view, that requires a bit more deep thinking and imagination than bringing public transport to a standstill or blocking roads needed by the emergency services.

While we hope the police interpret the right to protest in a liberal and balanced way, we argue that it is in the interest of the cause XR espouses that protesters avoid confrontation. It should eschew demos that succeed only in persuading fair-minded people that environmentalists are a nuisance intent on making life worse for them.