Covid-like restrictions should be used against the violent riots currently taking place around Britain according to Government adviser John Woodcock.

Woodcock, who serves as a government advisor on political violence, argues that the current level of unrest across the country could constitute an emergency in which “further action” would need to be taken. He said that if the protests did not “peter out”, then the Government would have public support to take stronger measures.

But Professor David Paton, who said he saw this coming, warns that it will be a slippery slope to a very dangerous place if the Government is allowed decide what we can and cannot protest.

In an article for Unheard Prof Paton writes:

When the last Government enacted draconian restrictions on the right to assembly and protest on the pretext of limiting the spread of Covid-19, there were warnings about the precedent this could set. Namely, that basic civil rights could be put aside by politicians with little scrutiny or serious challenge

Those concerns are beginning to seem prophetic. John Woodcock, ex-Labour MP and Government advisor on political violence, argued this weekend that reinstating Covid-like restrictions would be the right response to the violent disorder taking place around the country following the dreadful events in Southport last week. At the same time, Keir Starmer has signalled moves that include more Government control of online information and the expansion of state surveillance through facial recognition.

Civil rights groups such as Big Brother Watch have expressed concern about the implications of such proposals for civil rights. But there is an even more fundamental principle that has been under attack for some time which has received much less attention: those who make our laws should not decide which of those laws we are allowed to protest against.

Violence during public protests, especially against the police, is inexcusable, and the targeting by rioters of migrant hotels this weekend is deeply troubling. But the suggestion in some quarters that the main problem is violence from far-Right protestors is wide of the mark. In recent years, we have seen violent protests by extremists from across the political spectrum including groups linked to the far-Left, Islam, anti-racism, Just Stop Oil and the transgender movement.

Yet despite systematic aggression and violence from all these factions, the one group politicians have decided to ban is anti-abortion activists outside clinics. Such protests in the UK have been entirely peaceful, largely consisting of Christians praying quietly and offering non-judgemental support to pregnant women: no threats to the police and no violent disorder.

This “buffer zone” law sets a hugely significant precedent that should worry people of all political persuasions: MPs have taken it on themselves also to adjudicate which issues people have the right to protest against. Under the buffer zone law, for example, animal rights activists could protest against animal experimentation on drugs outside a clinic or hospital even if the protests caused upset to staff or patients. But if an elderly Christian lady decides to protest (or even pray) against abortion, at the same venue, MPs have decided she should be deemed to be committing a criminal offence. In contrast, protests by far-Right (or far-Left) extremists in Southport or elsewhere remain legal, as long as they do not veer into violence.