Councillor Kay’s Blog: Does the end ever justify the means?
Politics / Tue 13th Aug 2024 at 07:30am
WOMEN haven’t always had the right to vote. In 1865 a group was formed to discuss votes for women but there were worries about extremists becoming members. However, Leigh Smith Bodichon managed to collect almost 1500 signatures in favour of female suffrage. The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), headed by Emmeline, Christabel and Sylvia Pankhurst unified the various campaigning groups, organising publicity events and parades but the government refused to allow a debate on the issue. In the face of such intransigence, some WSPU members resorted to violence … stone-throwing, window-smashing, setting fire to unoccupied churches and houses.
Women received full voting rights here in 1918 and could even stand for election.
What was the effect of suffragette violence, though? It was undoubtedly the result of frustration but historians believe it impeded progress because it lost public sympathy.
Just over a week ago, rioting broke out in several parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland where petrol bombs (mostly thrown by children) and fireworks were hurled at police officers. Buildings were damaged, windows and windscreens smashed, vehicles burned. Frightened residents took refuge elsewhere; some people defended their streets, some resorting to weapons.
What was achieved? Scores of officers were injured. The judicial process has been expedited, rioters tried and sentenced; we can see their faces in our daily newspapers. We see the confusion in their motivation and we begin to grasp the power of big tech’s social media. We’ve begun to tackle the slippery, pervasive social media tentacles, at last.
Of course, another effect was anti-racist, anti-far right counter-demonstrations. Virtue-signalling or evidence of our country’s real values or a murky mix?
Does the end justify the means? We’re certainly paying attention to the possible causes of the rioters’ violence. Would the Good Friday Agreement have happened without the murders and maiming? Would that relative peace continue without the censoring of news stories? Does intimidation of Northern Ireland’s journalists constitute violence?
There are more questions than answers. (Life is one long, scary musical.) I don’t believe the end justifies the means. I do not believe it’s OK to maim, destroy, to reach a desired outcome but I may be in the minority. There is such a thing as state-sanctioned violence when the ethics become even stickier. Will there be bluebirds then?
David Forman
2024-08-13 10:48:13
Kay Morrison does not know her history on women's suffrage. In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it was only about two-thirds of the total population of women in the UK. Full suffrage came with the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that allowed women over 21 to vote and gave women the same voting rights as men. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote to 15 million. See parliament's article at https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/
Colleen Morrison
2024-08-13 11:25:47
There are few errors in the above blogpost, Kay. Two of my family campaigned for women's suffrage: Suffragette Kate Dice and her husband, Albert Dice, who campaigned for woman's suffrage with the suffragettes, so I've done some research on this. The Suffragette movement was at the outset a wholly peaceful one. They held indoor and outdoor debates, marched, cianed themselves to railings, but no damage was done. That changed, however, due, not just to the Suffragetes' frustration at the the lack of response from the government, but primarily due to the dreadful violent and sexual abuse that the Suffragettes were subjected to by the police, male bystanders and doctors. Even the King had a go at them. In January 1910, PM Asquith promised a Bill to allow the vote to middle class women and this was viewed as at least a foot in the door, but Asquith reneged on his promise. The violence use against Suffagettes came to a head on Black Friday 1910, when the the Suffragettes marched peacefully in protest against Asquith's betrayal and tried to debate this at a public meeting. However, the police and male bystanders ruthlessly and violently attacked the Suffragettes. Some of the witness statements at the Inquiry that followed stated: ‘I saw a policeman grab women by the collars, shake them and fling them aside like rats. I saw them take women up and fling them on the crowd as many logs on a wood pile…’ [MEPO 3/203] ‘I saw Ada Wright knocked down a dozen times in succession. A tall man with a silk hat fought to protect her as she lay on the ground, but a group of policemen thrust him away, seized her again, hurled her into the crowd and felled her again as she turned. Later I saw her lying against the wall of the House of Lords, with a group of anxious women kneeling round her.’ 135 Bystanders gave evidence of physical and sexual abuse of the Suffragettes on Black Friday. Witness statements were later categorised under: acts of violence, Methods of torture, indecent conduct, improper language of police and so on. The suffragettes were provoked beyond endurance simply for campaigning to be listened to and to be treated like adult human beings and allowed a basic human right. I do not condone violence, but I do understand how the suffragettes were provoked into becoming increasing militant and into illegal and violent tactics.
Colleen Morrison
2024-08-13 12:00:32
Thank you David Foreman for adding the point that all women were not allowed to vote until 1928. I would also like to add a little about the appalling treatment of the many hundreds of suffragettes who were imprisoned and went on hunger strikes in protest and were brutally force fed for doing so. The King wrote to prison governors and instructed them to make the Suffragettes suffer. One example of how Suffragettes were indeed made to suffer in prison is that of Emily Davison, who eventually died after throwing herself in front of the King's horse. Emily was imprisoned for calling out 'Votes for women' and thereby disrupting a public meeting attended by PM Lloyd George, who had promised Suffragettes the vote, but like this predecessors, had reneged on his promise. In common with most imprisoned Suffragettes, Emily went on hunger strike and was force fed, which involved being strapped to a chair and lying almost upside down, while a large funnel was forced down the throat and soup rapidly poured through the funnel. I understand that during Emily's 9th period of imprisonment, when she had been force fed on over 40 occasions, she felt she could not take any more and barricaded herself into her cell. Prison wardens dealt with this by pushing a hose thought her cell's bars and flooding the cell with icy cold water, forcing Emily to remove the baricades. Emily was then dried off and dragged upstairs for force feeding. Unable to take any more, Emily threw herself off of the prison's top floor. Her life was saved by security netting, however, she suffered injuries which left her permanently disabled.
Colleen Morrison
2024-08-13 12:16:12
I strongly disagree with Kay that Suffragettes impeded progress on women being given the vote. It was our government of the period that impeded this. The suffragettes stopped campaigning during WW1 in order to support our government and those serving in the armed forces and they transformed themselves into key organisers of, and workers in. the movement to replace male workers who were fighting overseas with female workers Women proved during the great war that they deserved the vote, yet once again they were betrayed by the government.
Kay Morrison
2024-08-13 16:50:57
Thanks for your comments, Colleen. I didn't attempt to capture all the detail of our fight for voting rights; therefore, I'm grateful for your additions. Incidentally, I've referred to historians' observations on the violence: not mine. IMy theme is reflected in the blog's title. It's an issue which has taken quite a lot of my attention, given my background. I don't usually respond to comments because trolls are thereby encouraged but, on this occasion, decided to make an exception. My best wishes.
Seamus
2024-08-14 16:45:53
I get Kay's point in that she used snapshots of history to ask if violence/civil unrest is justified, she never professed to give the complete history of every snapshot. In her examples whilst no one is saying violence/civil unrest is okay, you can't but help notice it has been part of the objectives completion. The problem we have is our politicians at local and national level have stopped listening to the people of the country and when the people carry out an event, they get labelled in a way to shut them up. Take the dozen or so people who turned up for an anti racism "protest" in Harlow which was more like a pack lunch day out for some people with the predictable banners. I don't know who invited them or if any of them were from Harlow at all. What happened? Some soppy old sod in a motability buggy thought straight arm salute was funny. Both parties were part of the look squirrel movements. Faux outrage from both the tories and labour followed. Really? That's what you do with your time? Nothing in Harlow was more important? The elephant in the room is mass uncontrolled migration but it's not just the U.K. it's happening all through europe and has been for decades but say something and you are labelled far right, racist, islamaphobe yadda yadda yadda, just to shut you up. People have seen this problem has been openly encouraged by the three main parties politicians for the last 30 years, so people of the multiple countries become dissenfranchised from politics as they no longer see the relevance of politicians. Take the last general election, only 60% of those who could vote, did. Only 20% of that 60% voted labour. My point? The elephant in the room remains, as the three main parties are pro uncontrolled migration and by action, do very little to control it. Starmer could have simply said on the first night of the riots "Guy's all of the parties in all governments over the last 30 years have got it wrong and let you all down.Give me some time to start to bring it round" he didn't because he wanted the riots to continue so he could flex his political muscle. So when we say is violence and disruption beneficial to a just cause? it would seem more than just the protesters benefit from dissatisfaction. I'd prefer there was no rioting or violence but that largely depends on the politicians remembering they work for us and we are not an inconvenience between elections
Leave a Comment Below:
6 Comments for Councillor Kay’s Blog: Does the end ever justify the means?: