Violence against MPs is unforgivable, but history shows it is not a result of protests | Stephen Reicher

The spectre of the mob' has long been summoned to limit freedom. There's just one problem: protests almost never lead to violence

A spectre is haunting Westminster - the spectre of collective violence against MPs. Large crowds chant noisily outside parliament during debates on Palestine; protesters surround Tobias Ellwood's house; Jo Stevens' constituency office is vandalised - and all this against the backdrop of the murders of David Amess and Jo Cox. The parties are united in seeking to exorcise this spectre. It has already led to parliamentary procedure being changed in a way that made a mockery of the debate over violence in Gaza. It has also led to calls for new police powers to curb protests outside parliament. But is collective violence the problem here, and is the introduction of yet more curbs on protest the answer?

Certainly, acts of vandalism and of violence against MPs cast a chill over our democracy and have no justification. But over the past months, a few individual acts have become conflated with the collective protests - and in turn, protest has been equated with violence, or the threat of it.

Stephen Reicher is a professor of psychology at the University of St Andrews and a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the British Academy

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.