Noisy minorities are being allowed to bully the rest of us into silence

It can be quite remarkable how the perceptions of political events differ. Most of the commentariat has judged Rishi Sunak’s announcement of an election, standing outside No 10 in what became a soaking downpour, to have been humiliating. At best, a symbol of his poor judgment. At worst, an omen of the doom to come.

But the real people I talk to speak of the one thing that they found most notable about that scene: the infuriating, outrageous blasting of amplified music from what was described on the broadcast media as a “protest” outside the gates of Downing Street.

This “protest”, as it happened, was not a mass demonstration of organised discontent with the Government. It was just a puerile appearance by that bellowing buffoon Steve Bray who memorably disrupted much of the College Green news coverage of the Brexit debate with his relentless hollering. At Downing Street, he was accompanied by a handful of mates and a boombox which played the New Labour anthem “Things Can Only Get Better” on repeat at full volume.

In the event, the words of the song were lost to those watching on television: all they heard was a senseless rhythmic roar, which did not quite succeed in drowning out the Prime Minister’s speech. What it did do was create a sense of belligerent disrespect not just for Mr Sunak and his party but for the institutions of government and for the population which was being addressed.

What appalled most ordinary viewers was that any prime minister announcing an election – which is the most significant democratic moment in the life of a free society – could be subjected to this absurd, belittling charade without any apparent hindrance by the police or security services. In what other country, many of my interlocutors asked, would this be allowed to happen?

In fact, the police did move in after the speech and the accompanying “protest” had finished, and Bray is now allegedly banned from the Westminster precinct. But the mystery remains as to why this did not happen immediately, since there are now laws to prevent demonstrations that involve noisy disruption.

As it was, an impression remained of lawlessness and anarchic chaos which might well reflect on the Government. Had the Tories, with their record-breaking levels of unpopularity, lost control of the apparatus of authority to such an extent that even their most important official pronouncements to the people could be treated with open contempt?

But no, actually that analysis does not hold. Even Boris Johnson, when he had just won an election with a huge popular mandate, was subjected to a screeching cacophony from the pavement outside No 10 when he tried to speak to the country from its steps. What is happening here should be offensive to anyone of any political persuasion who believes in the democratic process.

It is important to see it for what it is: not just a few obnoxious clowns making a nuisance of themselves but part of a much larger pattern in which very small groups of people can take over the public space and bully much larger cohorts of people into silence. It is absolutely necessary to remember that the noisy Left-wing activists who manage to pack the BBC’s Question Time audience, or who organise social media pile-ons against public figures (including elected Parliamentarians) who dare to utter biological facts, are a minority – by definition – because political activism of any kind is a minority pursuit.

The confusion that they exploit is the idea that their disruption of the efforts of elected governments to communicate with their populations is itself a sacred liberty. The false logic here should be clear. Of course, the right to protest is essential in a free society, but it cannot take the form of preventing those with whom you disagree from being heard. If those whose views you dislike do not have a right to free speech, then neither do you.

Elected governments have traditionally had a putative right to outlaw certain kinds of expression. Until recently this was limited to fairly extreme examples: death or blackmail threats, incitement to violence, criminal libel. More recently, it had been wildly enlarged to include statements which offend tiny specialised groups in arcane ways. But we have now arrived at a further stage where even the disagreements about what may be said cannot be discussed.

The activist minorities are, in effect, making it impossible to debate not just their views but the very idea that such views might be debatable. There must be no argument about what it is acceptable to argue about. So what would until very recently have been considered an outrageous assertion – that, for example, men who call themselves women are actually women – must not be regarded as up for discussion. If you defy this edict and insist that this is a contentious matter which is open to question, you may be silenced by intimidating mobs who can, apparently with impunity (because they are exercising their right to protest) take away your right to express your opinion.

It is not just respect for politicians of a particular party or generation that is being traduced: it is the whole enterprise of accountable government. How much legitimate authority can a prime minister be said to have when an announcement of this importance can be drowned out by a handful of exhibitionists with a noise machine? And why should infinitesimally small cliques of lobbyists be able to determine the limits of the public discourse?

The secret of their disproportionate influence is a formula which has been well-known on the Left for over a century: organisation, dedication, discipline. As in the Downing Street case, tiny numbers can create entirely disproportionate amounts of oppressive noise. Ordinary people – even those who regard themselves as politically active and astute – cannot compete with this tireless interventionism, which can rear up at any point, in any context that offers an opportunity to exert influence.

For some reason which future historians will explain, official authority has taken a conscious decision to permit this licence for minority lobbies to dominate the public stage.